Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
We refuse to sacrifice people from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from comprehensive schools for whatever benefits society as a whole gets from grammar schools.
Developing a small cadre of future postdoc reseachers in science, as you suggest later on, would be social engineering.

---

So you would rather have everybody average than some brilliant and others crap.

Personally, given the choice between (a) a policy that results in a cadre of brilliant postgrads who might find a cure for cancer or a solution to the energy crisis, but with comp pupils being slightly crapper than normal or (b) a policy that results in less brilliant postdocs who won't find the solutions, but with comp pupils being slightly less crap than normal I'd choose (a) in a heartbeat.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But being stuck in poor comps is OK for the other 90% who don't pass the 11+, right?

---

It's better for 10% to escape than 0%.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I fail to see why both good comps and grammar schools should be any different at getting those who are academically able into university.

---

The problem is academically able kids who get stuck in bad comps because their parents can't afford any of the alternatives. For them, grammars are the only escape.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Far more than 10% 'escape' under a comprehensive system - 70% of A level students at a Comprehensive go on to university.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Far more than 10% 'escape' under a comprehensive system - 70% of A level students at a Comprehensive go on to university.

---

"Of A Level students". What percentage of comprehensive pupils take A Levels in the first place?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I fail to see why both good comps and grammar schools should be any different at getting those who are academically able into university.

---

The problem is academically able kids who get stuck in bad comps because their parents can't afford any of the alternatives. For them, grammars are the only escape.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
We refuse to sacrifice people from poorer backgrounds who would benefit from comprehensive schools...

...Banning private schools altogether would be refusing parents freedom. I don't see how the state choosing between comprehensive and selective systems is refusing freedom...

...The only reliable way to tailor education to the pupil, as I understand it, is to teach the pupil. Running the pupil through a test at 11 is not a reliable way of doing so.
I don't see why education cannot be tailored to pupils in comprehensives.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me the question boils down to 3 points:
- whether, other things being equal, bright kids do better in a grammar school than in a comprehensive school

My view is yes the kids at grammar school benefit therefrom, from a school with a tradition and ethos which is "tailored" above and beyond the tailoring which happens at classroom level.

---

quote:

---

- whether, other things being equal, not-so-bright kids do worse in the same big comprehensive school if the bright kids go to a grammar school doen the road instead
And that most of the kids in the big comprehensive haven't lost anything much from the grammar school nerds not being there. No sacrifice required. Although those who only narrowly fail the grammar school selection test do lose out in terms of peer group.

---

quote:

---

And that if it is a case of conflicting interests, the right resolution is based on the idea of freedom of association. That it's wrong to deny any group of children the right to go off and learn together for the sake of the feelings of those left behind.

---

quote:

---

And then you apply some "greatest good of the greatest number" type resolution of conflicting interests ?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's your view. There are teachers here who disagree.

---

quote:

---

more to the point, I can't see why the tailoring at the level of tradition and ethos wouldn't also benefit the 'not-so-bright' children. Surely almost all children would benefit from tradition and the appropriate school ethos.

---

quote:

---

as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

quote:

---

You're denying the right of children who fail the test to associate with the children who pass the test.

---

quote:

---

The state is equally responsible to everyone. It cannot justify excluding one group from provisions available to another group without some compelling overriding public benefit or some rectificatory advantage.

---

quote:

---

it would be a Rawlsian belief that no inequality should be accepted without the consent of the party that is made worse off by the inequality.

---

quote:

---

all children are equally children of the one heavenly father.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The point about "tailoring" is that people are different and benefit from different culture and emphasis. It's not there's one "best" ethos which everybody should be equally entitled to. It's more that some benefit from a focus on preparing for higher education that would be counterproductive applied to those with no interest or prospects in that direction.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's your view. There are teachers here who disagree.

---

quote:

---

more to the point, I can't see why the tailoring at the level of tradition and ethos wouldn't also benefit the 'not-so-bright' children. Surely almost all children would benefit from tradition and the appropriate school ethos.

---

quote:

---

as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

quote:

---

You're denying the right of children who fail the test to associate with the children who pass the test.

---

quote:

---

The state is equally responsible to everyone. It cannot justify excluding one group from provisions available to another group without some compelling overriding public benefit or some rectificatory advantage.

---

quote:

---

it would be a Rawlsian belief that no inequality should be accepted without the consent of the party that is made worse off by the inequality.

---

quote:

---

all children are equally children of the one heavenly father.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
more to the point, I can't see why the tailoring at the level of tradition and ethos wouldn't also benefit the 'not-so-bright' children. Surely almost all children would benefit from tradition and the appropriate school ethos.

---

The point about "tailoring" is that people are different and benefit from different culture and emphasis. It's not there's one "best" ethos which everybody should be equally entitled to. It's more that some benefit from a focus on preparing for higher education that would be counterproductive applied to those with no interest or prospects in that direction.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

You're right that that's not good. But that's the failure of the secondary modern system to develop a vision of what success for the not-so-bright looks like.

---

quote:

---

I'm reminded of "Brave New World". Where the betas and gammas and deltas were happy that they were making a valued contribution as betas and gammas and deltas.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're denying the right of children who fail the test to associate with the children who pass the test.

---

Freedom of association isn't a right to crash the Duke of Westminster's party. No individual has an absolute right to associate with others that overrides the right of those others to choose not to associate with that individual.

It's not for the State to say who shall associate with whom. It's for those in any group to decide who they want as members.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure you recognise that subnormal intellectual potential might warrant state provision that isn't given to those for whom it is not suited. Why is it so hard to recognise supra-normal ability ? Why aren't the particular needs of the top 10% of the bell curve the mirror-image of the needs of the bottom 10% ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

it would be a Rawlsian belief that no inequality should be accepted without the consent of the party that is made worse off by the inequality.

---

Kids are born unequal - strong and weak, beautiful and ugly, even-tempered and moody. Helping them all to move forward from where they are, to fulfil their potential, means accepting those inequalities.

---

quote:

---

The fit young man doesn't need the consent of the doddery old one to run for a bus. Doesn't mean that either has to look down on those who have to make a life with lower expectations.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

all children are equally children of the one heavenly father.

---

But not clones thereof. Equal worth in the sight of God does not imply equal ability or other sameness in earthly attributes.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Higher education requires no specific skills that are not required in any adult workplace. The most important skills required for higher education are self-motivation and time management, which someone is more likely to learn in a school whose teaching is not geared up to getting as many children as possible into higher education.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Equal worth in the sight of God does not imply equal ability or other sameness in earthly attributes.

---

It implies greater concern for the more needy and vulnerable.

---

quote:

---

at this point we are granting for the sake of argument your argument that exclusive schools genuinely benefit some children, and granting for the sake of argument my argument that they harm those children who don't get in, and asking how to resolve the conflict of interests. And the answer is that we go with the interests of those with lower expectations either way.

---

quote:

---

You do realise that Brave New World is a dystopia? We wouldn't want to live there? That someone's life as a beta or delta was determined before birth by chemical lobotomy and brainwashing?

---

quote:

---

a two channel system is defensible if it isn't tiered. It's tiered if the children who fit neither channel well are all put into the one channel

---

quote:

---

it would be a Rawlsian belief that no inequality should be accepted without the consent of the party that is made worse off by the inequality.

---

quote:

---

concern for the more needy and vulnerable

---

quote:

---

That is the problem right there: as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Equal worth in the sight of God does not imply equal ability or other sameness in earthly attributes.

---

It implies greater concern for the more needy and vulnerable.

---

I disagree. It implies equal concern for the God-likeness in all of us. The more we focus on God, the more we want the best for everyone, regardless of where our particular sympathies may lie.

---

quote:

---

I don’t think much of the type of religion that serves only to validate one’s existing prejudices. Whether it’s “God who made thee mighty make thee mightier yet” or conversely the belief that the existing social order is fundamentally unjust.

---

quote:

---

My answer would be that liberty is a good in itself. So that if in doubt, the default should be to favour a system that permits over a system that coerces or forbids.

So I wouldn't remotely consider banning grammar schools unless the harm that you perceive was direct and provable and sizable and inevitable.

---

quote:

---

It's only partly less repugnant (than lobotomy) in the milder form of denying bright kids the opportunity to develop their full intellectual potential for the sake of an egalitarian social order.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

a two channel system is defensible if it isn't tiered. It's tiered if the children who fit neither channel well are all put into the one channel

---

But don’t all schools have (preferably published) policies on who they accept if demand exceeds places available ? So that all children who fall below the cut-off line for the over-subscribed school get put in the under-subscribed school ? So this “tiered” criterion doesn’t seem to work – it objects to the practicalities of running any system rather than saying anything meaningful about different systems.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

it would be a Rawlsian belief that no inequality should be accepted without the consent of the party that is made worse off by the inequality.

---

So going to university (which clearly gives the student an advantage in the job market) is only acceptable with the consent of those who lack the ability to benefit from university education ? Did you seek such consent before going to uni yourself ?

---

quote:

---

My recollection is that the research shows that on balance girls tend to benefit from single-sex education and boys don’t. Is it therefore your position that this is acceptable if and only if the boys consent ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

concern for the more needy and vulnerable

---

.I guess you’d see girls as more vulnerable than boys. So your position on single-sex education is “whatever the girls want” ? If girls (or their parents acting in their interests) want a girls’ school, they should have it ? But if there’s a long-established boys’ school that some girls want to attend then they should be allowed to do so ?

In that case, you don’t have principles, you have sympathies.

---

quote:

---

Maybe this sentence best sums up your feelings ?

quote:

---

That is the problem right there: as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

---

quote:

---

But something more like grammar schools that teach pupils to value themselves as academic high-flyers and vocational schools that teach pupils to value themselves as practical people with the skills to make things work in everyday life and other schools (not sure what the best label would be) that teach pupils to value themselves as well-rounded individuals.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

We don't expect the infirm man to make way for the fit man; indeed we expect the fit man to help the infirm man onto the bus if necessary.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The more we focus on God, the more we want the best for everyone, regardless of where our particular sympathies may lie.

---

Concern for the godlikeness in everyone is ridiculous. You cannot give solicitude, or attention, or worry, to everyone. Nor is it appropriate to give worry and solicitude to people who are managing fine without your concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you help carry a pushchair onto the bus, you're not then obliged to carry the young man who accuses you of only helping people 'with whom you feel particular sympathy'.

---

quote:

---

You don't think liberty is a good in itself. You favour some liberties over others. For example, you prefer the liberty of parents to exclude other children from their children's school over the liberty of parents to send their children to whatever school they think most suitable.

---

quote:

---

If you think some people falling short of their full potential is undesirable, then surely the equitable thing is to give everyone the same teaching and resources so that everyone is given equal opportunity.

---

quote:

---

Dafyd:
a two channel system is defensible if it isn't tiered. It's tiered if the children who fit neither channel well are all put into the one channel

---

quote:

---

Russ:
But don’t all schools have (preferably published) policies on who they accept if demand exceeds places available ? So that all children who fall below the cut-off line for the over-subscribed school get put in the under-subscribed school ?

---

quote:

---

Dafyd's reply:
Let's take selection by catchment area...

---

quote:

---

Russ:

In that case, you don’t have principles, you have sympathies.

---

quote:

---

Dafyd's reply:
You haven't spotted any special pleading going on.

---

quote:

---

Dafyd:
That is the problem right there: as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You don't think liberty is a good in itself. You favour some liberties over others. For example, you prefer the liberty of parents to exclude other children from their children's school over the liberty of parents to send their children to whatever school they think most suitable.

---

In a free society, a relationship happens when both parties desire it. I can't force you to be my friend. The right of freedom of association that we have is a negative right, a right to decide "no, I don't want to associate with him". Because that's a right we can have as two free people who respect each other's rights. If either of us had a positive right to have the other as a friend, that other wouldn't have the right to say no - it would be coercive.

You can call that "favouring some liberties over others" if you like. But it's how a free society works.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you think some people falling short of their full potential is undesirable, then surely the equitable thing is to give everyone the same teaching and resources so that everyone is given equal opportunity.

---

Other things being equal, unfulfilled potential does seem undesirable. I thought we'd agreed some pages back that a level of educational resource that gives people a decent chance of fulfilling that potential should be given to everyone, and that nobody thinks that grammar schools should be given more resources than other schools.

But not the same teaching. Fulfilling everyone's potential means that those who have the ability for calculus get taught calculus and those who don't don't.

---

quote:

---

The next bit is where you seemed to be putting forward three different principles which gave three different answers when applied to the question of segregation by gender. Which I raise only because one might expect the same sort of principles to apply as with segregation by ability.

Your replies leave me none the wiser as to your view on this issue.

---

quote:

---

At the cost of denying any parental choice (other than the sort exercised by moving house, which has been discussed). Is that your conclusion - that "non-tiered" requires absence of choice ? And therefore you don't believe parental choice should play any role ?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Russ:
[qb]
In that case, you don’t have principles, you have sympathies.

---

quote:

---

Dafyd's reply:
You haven't spotted any special pleading going on.

---

Your logic seems perfectly correct to me. You're not special pleading. Special pleading requires having principles that you want to excuse those you have sympathies with from being subject to. (Implying incidentally that there are two types of thing called principles and sympathies). If one has no principles other than to act on one's sympathies, there is no possibility of special pleading.

Some of the things you say suggest that this is your philosophy. That there is no evil that you will not do in support of those you consider needy and vulnerable.

I may be misreading you. You may wish to clarify.
Or not.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Dafyd:
That is the problem right there: as long as you have grammar schools one peer group will be considered better than others. And the whole group of children at the non-grammar school will know this.

---

Consider a thought experiment. Suppose children are given an entirely spurious test, one group are picked at random and told that they have a high phlogiston coefficient and are therefore capable of achieving great things. Another group are told that they have a low phlogiston coefficient and will therefore probably not amount to much but should try hard anyway. If the two groups are educated separately, will the high-phlogiston group do better than the control group ? and will the low-phlogiston group do better than the control group ?

Then you repeat the experiment but tell the high-phlogiston group that high is better and the low-phlogiston group that low is better. What will the result be then ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Also, before you can say whether single-sex education benefits boys and disadvantages girls you'd have to establish that mixed-sex education is the baseline, and I think that's a pretty meaningless assertion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Strictly the Rawls answer would be (supposing single-sex education benefits girls and mixed-sex education benefits boys) to find out whether girls under mixed-sex education do better or worse than boys under single-sex education, and pick the side that does better under that comparison.
The principle is maximin: you pick the system under which the least well-off group in that system is doing better.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Given that girls consistently outperform boys at school, are you sure you've got that the right way round?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Strictly the Rawls answer would be (supposing single-sex education benefits girls and mixed-sex education benefits boys) to find out whether girls under mixed-sex education do better or worse than boys under single-sex education, and pick the side that does better under that comparison.
The principle is maximin: you pick the system under which the least well-off group in that system is doing better.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Strictly the Rawls answer would be (supposing single-sex education benefits girls and mixed-sex education benefits boys) to find out whether girls under mixed-sex education do better or worse than boys under single-sex education, and pick the side that does better under that comparison.
The principle is maximin: you pick the system under which the least well-off group in that system is doing better.

---

Why adopt that principle rather than consider the interests of everyone?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If women do worse at university - I believe they tend to

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think ideally a Rawlsian would want to look at the effect schooling has on people's life chances overall. And that might tip the judgement towards favouring girls.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you're a father of girls only and single-sex education is available you may perfectly well choose that. But if you're getting together with many other families to set up a school system, and some families have boys and girls, and some have boys only, and they all want a mixed-education system it's not clear that you have any grounds to stand on in insisting on the system that's better for your children and worse for theirs. (Assuming that for whatever reason the system won't work without their participation.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In my region they have 'magnet' schools. There are several with language immersion, half the day being spent on lessons in Spanish or Mandarin Chinese or whatever.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think there's an underlying evil that somewhat affects the ethics of the parents.

At least in America, money follows success, and there's a tendency, I think throughout the school systems, to spend all the money on the high achievers...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I you think (as I do) that the government should, as far as is reasonably possible, empower parents to make decisions in the best interests of their children, the Rawlsian analysis doesn't really apply. A parent can ethically, and without injustice, choose a non-Rawlsian option for schooling, so it is legitimate for the government to permit and enable them to do so. State-funded selective/single-sex/faith/specialist schools are therefore legitimate options. Where resources permit (and in much of the UK, resources certainly do permit) it is moral for the state to provide them if there is sufficient parental demand.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The second parents can however reasonably object to paying for the first parents' choice out of public funds to which they contribute when it is worse for their own children.

---

quote:

---

(The Rawlsian veil of ignorance asks, which system would you choose if you didn't know which set of parents you belonged to. Granting that is even meaningful, it has to then assume that you wouldn't want to take risks with your children's education.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The second parents can however reasonably object to paying for the first parents' choice out of public funds to which they contribute when it is worse for their own children.

---

You say that as if the first group aren't also contributing to public funds.

We all have things that we think our taxes shouldn't be spent on, but that others think are good and proper. That's the nature of living in a democracy.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
Public services should be available to everyone unless there is some common interest or redistributive justification for excluding certain parties or where some form of rationing takes place. No such justification applies to excluding some children from schools.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
Public services should be available to everyone unless there is some common interest or redistributive justification for excluding certain parties or where some form of rationing takes place. No such justification applies to excluding some children from schools.

---

Would you be happy for the state to build a specialist cancer hospital that treats those with the most life-threatening forms of cancer ? Which individuals would not be admitted to unless examination by a doctor indicated that they were one of the cases that would most benefit from admission ?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd
Public services should be available to everyone unless there is some common interest or redistributive justification for excluding certain parties or where some form of rationing takes place.

---

Would you be happy for the state to build a specialist cancer hospital that treats those with the most life-threatening forms of cancer ? Which individuals would not be admitted to unless examination by a doctor indicated that they were one of the cases that would most benefit from admission ?

---

Posted                       

• 30 in an academic stream (equivalent to your grammar provision);
• 60 in academic streams targeted to better English or Maths knowledge (lower grammar provision);
• 40 in a vocational stream with groups studying motor vehicles or construction;
• 20 in a stream to support learning

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you wish to continue this line of ad hominem argument about my lack of principles and the evils I would commit on that basis, I'll be happy to clarify for you, if you wish to start a thread in Hell for the purpose.

---

quote:

---

an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you praise children's success as a matter of innate ability that results in them being less confident and more willing to give up when faced with difficulties, or even to cheat. Whereas if you tell them that their success is down to hard work and effort they're more willing to try harder when they don't immediately understand something and more likely to find the effort of learning rewarding for its own sake.

On the other hand, studies do show that if you introduce a subject by saying that a certain group of people tend to do better or worse at that subject, lo and behold they do better or worse. This is most notable when applied to groups where there's a preexisting expectation on the basis of gender...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Except that you seemed to be putting forward a position that sympathy for those you consider vulnerable trumps all principles.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Except that you seemed to be putting forward a position that sympathy for those you consider vulnerable trumps all principles.

---

You seem to dismiss priciples you don't like as 'sympathy for those you consider vulnerable'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Everyone has their idea of who is more vulnerable. In Russ's view, it is clever kids from middle-class families.

---