RAPFA pre season meeting invitation - Saturday 9th of July

[Darren]

What I have pointed out. The fact that he compares literacy with "difficulties reading and spelling". Seriously if my daughter made such a basic error in reasoning in her undergraduate studies she get an E-

So the 20% aren't illerate them, according to the mail. They have the reading age of an 11 year old. Of course West doesn't tell us how good his 19th century literates were at reading.

 

[JJ Sefton]

So the 20% aren't illerate them, according to the mail. They have the reading age of an 11 year old.

Wow, we really should be thanking our lucky stars for the 'funtional illiteracy' of one in five Brits. Just think how much worse it would be without compulsory education.

And its not "according to the Mail". Its government research reported in the Mail.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Was he the showjumper with the dreadlocks?

That's Oliver Skeete

 

[Ollessendro]

Well, if they'd had Fletcher in there instead i doubt they would have had as much room to manoeuvre

Aha, thanks Highbury. Another midfielder that can tackle, win the ball without giving a free kick or a penalty away and actually pass to a team mate.

 

[bricktop]

Long way to go for a pint Olle

Speaking of real ale, the Jail Ale went down very well last night :drunk:

Jail Ale. Brewed in Princetown, Dartmoor.

Not a bad brew, but anyone who has ever been to Princetown before will tell you that it is a strange, strange place.

 

[Darren]

Wow, we really should be thanking our lucky stars for the 'funtional illiteracy' of one in five Brits. Just think how much worse it would be without compulsory education.

And its not "according to the Mail". Its government research reported in the Mail.

No, just that the whole argument that education was better before the state intervened is blown out of the water by the statistics, if like is compared with like.. The official literacy rate now is 99%. It was about 80% when compulsory education was introduced. The counter argument relies on comparing, as HB put it apples and oranges.

You have relied on a "functional illiteracy" rate of 20%, which as the Mail makes clear, doesn't mean that someone is illiterate as usually understood, it means that someone has the reading and writing skills of the average 11 year old. Unless you have figures for "functional illiteracy" in the 19th century, you can't use that figure in your argument.

Ditto West's "difficulties with reading and spelling". Apart from the fact that this is so vague as to be meaningless, unless you have figures from the 19th century based on similar tests to those applied to the people in 1995, you can't use that in your argument either.

Also, the argument that "there things are bad aspects to compulsory education, therefore it would be better to have a voluntary system" is a non sequitur. It has the same logival basis as this argument: "there over 2 million people unemployed in the UK under capitalism. That is bad. Therefore it would be better to have socialism".

 

[JJ Sefton]

No, just that the whole argument that education was better before the state intervened

An argument I havent made, but do carry on...

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

The official literacy rate now is 99%...You have relied on a "functional illiteracy" rate of 20%, which as the Mail makes clear, doesn't mean that someone is illiterate as usually understood, it means that someone has the reading and writing skills of the average 11 year old.

Mate, personally I dont see an adult with the reading ability of an 11 year old and think "Strike one for state education!". I think "Wow, thats pretty shit".

Ultimately we have wandered rather far from the initial point which was that compulsory education has been a notable failure if judged by the criteria of whether all kids go to school.

The debate about literacy and the state or private provision is neither here nor there. It would, after all, be perfectly possible to legally require attendance at private sector schools (as will be the case pretty soon).

 

[Darren]

An argument I havent made, but do carry on...

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------



Mate, personally I dont see an adult with the reading ability of an 11 year old and think "Strike one for state education!". I think "Wow, thats pretty shit".

You are just avoding the issue now. The argument is not about whether or the current system is brilliant. It is about whether or not the stats show that the pre 1880 voluntary system was better. You appeat to be arguing it was - otherwise, why throw West and the IEA at us? If you aren't please tell us and we can wrap this one up.

 

[JJ Sefton]

You are just avoding the issue now.

No Im not. If you look back youll see that the question was about whether we needed compulsion to ensure that every kid goes to school. As I say, we have compulsion and tens of thousands dont go to school. Indeed, before compulsion we had 90% of kids going to school. Do you have different figures?

 

[Darren]

No Im not. If you look back youll see that the question was about whether we needed compulsion to ensure that every kid goes to school. As I say, we have compulsion and tens of thousands dont go to school. Indeed, before compulsion we had 90% of kids going to school. Do you have different figures?

Does your 90% come from Mr West? Given that you have shown us that he is prepared to use spurious and dishonest arguments in order to push his political agenda, I am afraid I am not prepared to take anything on trust from him. If you show me some stats from an respectable source we can discuss the issue

 

[JJ Sefton]

Does your 90% come from Mr West? Given that you have shown us that he is prepared to use spurious and dishonest arguments in order to push his political agenda, I am afraid I am not prepared to take anything on trust from him. If you show me some stats from an respectable source we can discuss the issue

Ive shown you stats from a book by an acknowledged expert in the field (he has a centre for the study of education named after him at Newcastle University) edited by a Professor and a PhD student and published by one of the UK's leading think tanks. You have produced...

...nowt. What figures do you have? At the moment ol' EG is the only game in town.

And given your readiness to slander West, you are not the first...

But it was a review in the New Statesman, in extraordinarily intemperate language, by Dr (now Professor Emeritus) A. H. (‘Chelly’) Halsey, of Nuffi eld College, Oxford, which illustrates most profoundly how the ideas upset the prevailing intellectual climate: ‘Of all the verbal rubbish scattered about by the Institute of Economic Affairs,’ Halsey begun, ‘this book is so far the most pernicious.’ ‘Mr West’s ideas’, he wrote, ‘are a crass and dreary imitation of those published several years ago by Professor Milton Friedman – a man whose brilliance in argument is made futile by the absurd irrelevance of his 19th century assumptions.’ ‘Mr West’, said Halsey, ‘is a man who knows nothing about psycho logy, sociology, and who has less understanding of economics than first year students’; as for history: ‘When it comes to the history of education in the 19th century, Mr West goes beyond tolerable error.’ Philosophically, his discussion of ‘equality of opportunity’ was ‘hopeless’. Far from being an ‘impartial enquiry’, West had written, Halsey opined, ‘a gross distortion of the role of the state in education’. The final nail in the coffi n, as far as Halsey was concerned, was that West was far from being ‘civilised . . . like J. S. Mill’.

As it happened, that review was not the end of the matter for the New Statesman. A sober piece in the Daily Telegraph of 27 July 1966 reports the outcome:

Yesterday, after a statement in open court, an unusual action, involving two leading academics, was ended with an apology and costs from the New Statesman to the Institute of Economic Affairs.

The Institute last year published a book by Dr Edward [sic] West . . . Its theme was less State and more parental influence in education.

In the New Statesman Dr Halsey, Head of the Department of Social and Administrative Studies at Oxford, violently criticised the book, Dr West and the Institute. The Institute held that the attack went beyond the limits of fair criticism.

So the New Statesman has apologised handsomely and paid costs. It is consoling that the wider future of education can generate such heat in the Senior Common Room.

In the High Court on 26 July 1966, the magazine gave an unreserved apology for its ‘unjustified attack’ on Dr West and the IEA. Its review, it said, gave a totally misleading impression of West’s argument. The New Statesman published an apology in its edition of 22 July 1966.

 

[Darren]

Ive shown you stats from a book by an acknowledged expert in the field (he has a centre for the study of education named after him at Newcastle University) edited by a Professor and a PhD student and published by one of the UK's leading think tanks. You have produced...

...nowt. What figures do you have? At the moment ol' EG is the only game in town.

This is what the pamphlet says:

"For West argued that, prior to the major state involvement
in education in England & Wales in 1870, school attendance rates
and literacy rates were well above 90 per cent"

I have already given you stats that show that literacy rates were less than 90% in 1870. I have also shown you a quote from a Dr Rosen that only a third to a half of the "Labouring Classes" attended school in the early part of Victoria's reign. I think we can view the 90% school attendancew figure with a great deal of scepticism and even if it is correct, it doesn't show a very good record - 90% attending school and only 80% literate.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I have also shown you a quote from a Dr Rosen that only a third to a half of the "Labouring Classes" attended school in the early part of Victoria's reign.

You do know that Victoria was on the throne for a rather long time? Perhaps you could find some alternative figures for, oh I dont know, the right half century?

Put it this way; she was on the throne from 1837 to 1901. Education was made compulsory in 1880. So to accept your figures for the early part of her reign as being a worthwhile comparison we'd have to think that no change took place in society between 1837 and 1880.

Even given that a passing knowledge of the Victorian era shows this to be...a dubious proposition shall we say, think about it in terms more easily understood; was the England of Jimmy Hagan like the England of Alex Sabella? No? Then isnt it possible that Victorian society also saw massive changes over an equal period making figures from the 1830s a poor comparison for figures from the late 1870s?

 

[Darren]

You don know that Victoria was on the throne for a rather long time? Perhaps you could find some alternative figures for, oh I dont know, the right half century?

Can't find any unfortunately, but given that his figures on literacy are wrong, I think it is fair enough to be sceptical about his figures on school attendance and the point remains that if a volunatry attendance of 90% only got 80% literacy (and we mean literacy not "functional literacy" or "difficulties with reading and spelling"), I can't see how that supports the argument that voluntary is better.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Can't find any unfortunately, but given that his figures on literacy are wrong, I think it is fair enough to be sceptical about his figures on school attendance and the point remains that if a volunatry attendance of 90% only got 80% literacy (and we mean literacy not "functional literacy" or "difficulties with reading and spelling"), I can't see how that supports the argument that voluntary is better.

There you go talking about literacy again. As someone said to me recently

You are just avoding the issue now.

The issue is about attendance. The only figures we have, from a respected expert on education who was comissioned to work for the World Bank, and who won in court when he was accused of making his figures up, suggests that we had 90% attendance without compulsion. So Ill ask you again, what attendance do we have now?

PS Heres West defending his methodology for calculating attendance numbers.

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/test/test/egwest/pdf/education and the state/nineteenth century.pdf

 

[Darren]

There you go talking about literacy again. As someone said to me recently



The issue is about attendance. The only figures we have, from a respected expert on education who was comissioned to work for the World Bank, and who won in court when he was accused of making his figures up, suggests that we had 90% attendance without compulsion. So Ill ask you again, what attendance do we have now?

PS Heres West defending his methodology for calculating attendance numbers.

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/test/test/egwest/pdf/education and the state/nineteenth century.pdf

Ok, lets take his figures:

19th century volunatry system:

attendance 90% (according to West)
Literacy 80%
Percentage leaving school illiterate 10%

current system

Attendance: just under 99% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/mar/25/truancy-pupils-record-high)
Literacy 99%
Percntage leaving school illeterate: zero

QED

 

[JJ Sefton]

Ok, lets take his figures:

19th century volunatry system:

attendance 90% (according to West)
Literacy 80%
Percentage leaving school illiterate 10%

current system

Attendance: just under 99% (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/mar/25/truancy-pupils-record-high)
Literacy 99%
Percntage leaving school illeterate: zero

QED

I think you might want to check out some of those apples and oranges there.

 

[Darren]

I think you might want to check out some of those apples and oranges there.

Please point them out to me.

 

[JJ Sefton]

Please point them out to me.

Check out your graph for 80% literacy rates.

 

[Darren]

Check out your graph for 80% literacy rates.

I assume you alluding to the fact that it is a graph for literacy rates for brides and bridegrooms and the IEA pamplhlet does not tell us how West arrived at his 90% figure, so it may be based on something different, that is true. However we are none the wiser unless you can locate the source for the figure ascribed to West.

And one general point as well we have been overlooking - we have been talking about elementary education. The percentage of kids staying in school after the age of 12/13 in the 19th century was tiny - primarily because most parents could not afford to keep them in school as they needed the kids' wages. So whilst 90% of 10 year olds might have been in school, the prortion of 14 year olds was well below 50%.

 

[JJ Sefton]

I assume you alluding to the fact that it is a graph for literacy rates for brides and bridegrooms and the IEA pamplhlet does not tell us how West arrived at his 90% figure, so it may be based on something different, that is true. However we are none the wiser unless you can locate the source for the figure ascribed to West.

I imagine its in 'Education and the State', not a book I own but I think I can still access the uni library. Either way, it alters your calculations.

Either way, the issue is attendance. So we can say, with 99% of all children in school on any given day that the state has overseen the extension of coverage by 9%.

But, look again at you bride and bridegroom graph. Look at the trend and tell me what you see.

 

[Darren]

I imagine its in 'Education and the State', not a book I own but I think I can still access the uni library. Either way, it alters your calculations.

Either way, the issue is attendance. So we can say, with 99% of all children in school on any given day that the state has overseen the extension of coverage by 9%.

But, look again at you bride and bridegroom graph. Look at the trend and tell me what you see.

Which comes back to the original argument that without compulsion there would always be some parents who don't care about their kids' education and won't send them to school if they don't have to. Unless you are prepared to leave some children at the mercy of uncaring parents, the exact number is, as HB, said irrelevant.

The trend on the graph is uniformly upwards but I am not sure that that supports your argument.

 

[Jon Bon]

Does anyone remember OMO and square deal Surf? I wonder what happened to them? I often lament the demise of former household products when I'm bored off my tits.....

 

[shorehamview]

U

Does anyone remember OMO and square deal Surf? I wonder what happened to them? I often lament the demise of former household products when I'm bored off my tits.....

This is the important stuff that should worry us. Never mind the lefties, tree huggers and lesbotics, what happened to Vim? Why are carrier bags weaker than a cockney's morals, and what the fuck is with those baggy jogging bottoms as fashionable trousers?

Why can't you buy kangaroos, and when did it become acceptable for grown men to wear make-up?

 

[redalwaysablade]

All the latest ITK stuff is found in Womens Own.

This prominent periodical is the 'Bible' of up to the minute street savvyness.

The learned classes should never be without such a forthcoming and illuminating reference point.

It`s all the rage don`t ya know.....

 

[Jon Bon]

Woman's Own you say? I shall have to seek that one out at the newsagents when I pop in for my copy of Peoples Friend.

 

[JJ Sefton]

The trend on the graph is uniformly upwards but I am not sure that that supports your argument.

It supports it absolutely. It is, in fact, the very heart of it. What you see, on your graph, is the literacy of brides and bridegrooms rising consistently in the period prior to state compulsion of education. You see it rise after the introduction of state compulsion at exactly the same rate. In other words, the introduction of compulsion into education had no discernible effect at all. That being so, to return to the original point of three years ago, why have it?

 

[Ollessendro]

Like old times with Dazzler and Walthy going at it hammer and tongs. Slightly reminiscent of when Darren and I clashed antlers on the issue of wether the league table lies or not.

Anyway, Sat-di. Be there or be square. Sociable couple of pints of real ale and a bit of banter (and some talk of pass move of course) from 13:30. PM me and I'll send you my mobile no. Otherwise look out of a tall, dark haired bloke in late 20's wearing the Blades shirt below (and talking absolute bollocks!? ).

 

[davidpinder]

Like old times with Dazzler and Walthy going at it hammer and tongs. Slightly reminiscent of when Darren and I clashed antlers on the issue of wether the league table lies or not.

Anyway, Sat-di. Be there or be square. Sociable couple of pints of real ale and a bit of banter (and some talk of pass move of course) from 13:30. PM me and I'll send you my mobile no. Otherwise look out of a tall, dark haired bloke in late 20's wearing the Blades shirt below (and talking absolute bollocks!? ).

I will be there about 2pm olle i will look out for you, i will be the 6ft lad late 20's slighty over weight and depending on weather will have the current away shirt on. This brings me on the parking. As i mentioned in a previous thread i have the ski shop just up stubley hollow i will leave the gates open all day if anyone wants to park it is free, safe and off the road. I will come and lock them about 6pm (unless it is empty after the game) if anyone decides to have a few pints of real ale and leave the car over night PM me and i will come and unlock it on Sunday morning.

 

[Jon Bon]

Otherwise look out of a tall, dark haired bloke...

This sounds a bit like The Wicker Man. Shall I bring some matches?