Erina

That's what the miners of the seventies thought too.

I really don't know if this is worth pursuing on these forums any longer. What a shame.

@iNow: I dealt with your little joke and you can't get over it, well you shouldn't troll. Your problem. I don’t know how you define “stable” in terms of crypto-currency, they are inherently volatile. But, as the system is to replace Sterling transitions, I thought it obvious that the coin would be pegged to the national currency. @CharonY: The world is trending toward Blockchain technology and I think that it fits well with the my proposal, given that the participants will be cost conscious. Why wait until well after an anomaly has been discovered months later, when this could be seen in real time. Of course, a lot of what will be built upon Blockchains is not yet understood, but continuous monitoring opens up so many possibilities to find intuitive ways to avoid waste and be more efficient. Imagine a paper company browsing the school's blockchain transaction for a competitors price and low-balling them, the business would flow to the school. I didn't want to drag this conversation into tertiary level again, but did entertain some of the issues, for the sakes of harmony. However, I didn't agree with them. On top of which I found my solution didn't gain any traction. Ah, sorry about the Nobel Prize claim, that was an Anglo-pshere effort, not just the UK. I got mixed up with that, it was from something else.

You're right, I am fed up arguing the same point. But, I'm only replying to other members, including yourself. I feel that I have more than proven my point, but we'll just agree to disagree on that. How about then the manner in which the accounts are managed i.e. every cost placed on an open blockchain for everybody to inspect the ledger. The parents would be issued their budget in a crypto-currency, which then can only be spent in the school. I am aware that teachers being paid would need to convert that back (at the market rate) to buy food and pay a mortgage, but that is their own business. However, the bursary that the school received on top of each child's net value would be more challenging, as suppliers would need to be paid, but they would just have to accept the crypto-currency as that would be law (they can convert it themselves). Of course, a school would be given just enough rope to hang itself with. I know how that sounds but old habits die hard and some people think everybody else is just stupid. Once black holes start appearing in the accounts it will be very interesting to see just how the money is spent. Real time information on how and when money is spent would save on FOI requests, be fully transparent and with the right tools could highlight inefficiencies between schools. It could also show up areas where more than one school could pool their recourse and purchase in parallel to reduce their costs and highlight where suppliers or ingrained practices rip schools off, as somebody posted earlier.

Look, I can't create a system where you get something for free. If that sounds like the status quo wins out then think again, because money is everything. You may want a fun experience, but that's going to cost money, so either way you've got to justify that cost to yourself and fair enough. But I'm not pay for anybody else. You have to accept that too. Of course I believe in competition, that's how Mother Nature works and what drives a person to perform. You don't have to if you don't want to, but don't tell others that cannot. Don't forget the system (of which this conversation is supposed to be about secondary level education) is voluntary. I get a lot of flowery language on this thread, but then have to distill that, only to be told I am wrong. Well, correct me, show me the metic and path to achieving what you want that can be measure and plot on an index. The system at present gives parents an up front sum of £5k-£6k, this is not going to change. There is your "public funding" (although, that is paid by the parents via general taxation anyway). That sum is then negotiated between the school and teachers to pay them for the service that they can give your child. Given that only the top ten per cent will go on to tertiary level education, that sum will need to build up business, time and financial management skills to develop the student along a path they will take in life. If they are interested in military history, then fine, they will pursue it. If they like cookery, then ditto. But they will have what they need to hit the ground running. Okay, they will not speak a second language or play a musical instrument. But, they likely don't anyway. And if they want to, then they can, funds permitting. The only time the pay scale is skewered is when parents can chip in a little more for a music lesson, but that happens now anyway. For teachers to get paid more from the pot of cash made available then something needs to be cut. But, given that ninety per cent will not go to university then they will know that jobs will be next and so work toward that. The trouble today is that the next step is always another qualification and on, and on. But then when entering the market they've no life experience what so ever, with so much of what they were taught a waste of time. This system gets children ready, faster and into the real world. They will not care about the academic side of things, like the generation that put the present situation in place. Most now feel this way, but only after. I want to cut that nonsense out and let the majority know that getting into work quicker is not failure. I'll check out the Baumol effect, but I fail to see how unproductively is rewarded against genuine productivity ? It's a bit like the Unions striking right now for better pay. It makes no sense. Better to just outshine your contemporaries and negotiate on personal basis, rather than blackmail.

@CharonY: You mention Ivy League, we call it the Russell Group here in the UK. That free floating definition suits me, as the UK has far too many Universities and so, as you might expect, I have no issue with allowing the free markets to focus that talent to engorge the Russell Group - just take away the subsidies. I don't know what you expect folk to spend so much on an education for, if unable to repay that money without a job waiting for them. Do you expect them to remain in education all of their lives ? The quality of the education would surely then allow them to leap the pack, that's the correlation is it not ? David Starkey was cancelled. That should be more than enough proof. My reference to the Open University was to illustrate the kind of folk that should be at University. That kind of metric gives you an idea of the numbers that should be there, for the real reasons that you seek as well: to learn. The rest is just money. Don't forget, I am looking for trends that I can measure. Look there is no such thing as "free". Somebody that you have never met is paying, that's all. How can it be that secondary education costs more than the zenith that is supposed to be tertiary. When Blair waived his hand and said that fifty per cent of students should attend University that was what did the place in. Just charge the real cost and have job waiting at the other end to pay it off and the whole thing will work. Tax payer guaranteed loans will need to go. They allow fools to attend, to bring in the funding for the real courses. However, they contaminate the environment with their political views and we now have a corrupted system. This is how the UK system presently works. Getting rid of tax payer guaranteed loans means that the Russell Group would be University, as nobody would take anything else seriously and everything would go back to normal. The courses would be charged at a rate the market would accept and there should be enough money for genuine scholarships to be awarded to those with exceptional talent. The UK has as many Nobel Prizes as all of the EU countries combined (bar Germany). The Europeans love theory, but the Anglo-sphere does the practical, that is the system we need to maintain. The parallels of grade inflation as you say already exist, this I have drawn attention to with the private sector. However, the sums involved are uniform in my proposal and so there is no need to cheat, as the primary reason for doing so is likely financial, given the inflated costs in fee paying schools at secondary level (and repetitional I suppose). The sums are £5-6k, everybody is the same. Grade inflation is only for those wishing to seek tertiary level education and that will not work when the places are so few.

@CharonY: My goodness, where have you been since 1997. University was politicised from this point and then the funding issue mushroomed with the LidBen/Con coalition where Clegg guaranteed loans with tax payer money, thus allowing all and sundry to plug the funding gap as courses could not be fully funded. Universities played the system, it was well conceived, I suppose. Money being the main factor in keeping up with the Americans. However, they're not evil, as I alluded to before, Universities and STEM courses now promote how quick a student can find meaningful work in their chosen field - that seems to be the winning metric now. I don't know where you get your data from, perhaps experience, but that is too subjective for me and I cannot measure it. What I will say is that there are too many of the wrong folk attending tertiary level education and those that really should be there are likely poisoned by this kind of culture that you speak of. To my mind, the MIT "Open University" exam is a fine example (yes, I am an advocate of Home Schooling) of those that should attend. That can be measured, pass or fail, the participation rate would be a good barometer of how many should actually attend (perhaps then you can approach your golden ratio). I support the concept of Grammar Schools and a Classical Liberal curriculum. However, I recognised that not all will fit into that and need to accommodate them. @Genady: Academics are good at this kind of thing, but a lot of them couldn't even strike a match.

If anything, this conversation has shown me how utterly terrified the current system is of change.

My proposal can manage the issue of "large groups of children", which is something that needs to be tackled. A large body of interested minds will produce all manner of interesting possibilities, but those not pulling their weight will of course be the real issue. A smaller ratio is always better, where funding permits and I wonder what the golden ratio is when the conditions are right ?

@Phi for All : As everybody on this thread will concur, I never set out to “break all the rules”. To disrupt a cosy consensus of failure and overcharging for success to be sure, but what rules are these that I am to break, can you list them ? Perhaps it is you that is mistaken. I believe the concept of the Index may be the cause of your consternation then, as the sums involved are almost all level (depending on the local authority), as it allows teachers to negation Union power by negotiating pay on their own merit, rather than a uniform block push. Confusing financial outlay for the right conditions to be met is not the same thing as capital flight and gutting a service. Which fee paying schools in the private sector (in the UK) run for the benefit of those than the children attending ? @exchemist: I am not here to have others put words in my mouth. I could have rebutted his point, yes, but then again what can be submitted without evidence can be refuted in kind. Insert obligatory smiley face. However, you’re the first to take the conversation forwards by focusing on exam results (not coursework?). However, these result are easier to attain, where as the ninety per cent that will be looking for vocational skills will be looking to retain apprenticeship places. Think of it as cutting a step out: as University courses increasingly focused on the ability of graduates to find a paying job in their field of expertise. It is not unknown for fee paying school teachers to help get some more needy pupils over the finish line by doing work for them, it happens. But that it the problem that this system can solve as the costs will naturally deflate, rather than artificially remain high i.e. they won’t be able to convincingly cheat enough after Mother Nature has paid them a visit. The Index would not focus on top grade students for the highest paying jobs, rather those that managed to mould a child to impress their employer to the point that they were requested to return, which is a metric that can be measure, including the time of which that pupil remained in that position. Of course, for the ten per cent that wish to pursue tertiary level education then both course work and regurgitating facts on command will take precedence, but at least the teacher will be working with those of whom can perform, rather than fudging results for those that will only further dumb it down. Metrics for those that did get one in (as they used to say in Grammar) revealing the persistence of the child to see a course right through may also be attributed i.e. drop out rate, but that it a little controversial, but would show the confidence that a teacher had, were they to commend them for example ? @CharonY: What you say applies to most, so I cannot answer that definitively. However, too much choice surely could be viewed as making such a situation worse ? The schools being focused in the manner of which I present them will likely not net those fuzzy types, given the kind of fast track nature of education that they offer. But then what of a speed dating like taster of subjects; it could simply take an afternoon slicing through vegetables to fall in love with cookery, or the symbolism of the Romans during their battles in the past to hook a child on the subject of History, enough for them to commit to it, so why take a year to find out, children move to a different rhythm. I don’t see what official subject matter at secondary level education has to do with the jobs market as a child grows into an adult and even if it did then surely it would not take too much nous to be able to learn it, even on the job. I think that the mythology of University has been well and truly exposed, that was a generational chip and has since been brushed away. The majority may still understand that a degree is required for many jobs, but do not value them, nor increasingly the institutions that they are issued from e.g. interviewing “CV blind”. Teaching how to learn is not that difficult, it really isn’t, all it requires is trust and fair system of reward. That’s and the concept that mistakes must be analysed and understood. That form of self-sufficiency is one skill that will be relied upon time and time again. Which university courses and which universities worth their weight allow the for students to dictate and what kind of control do they actually have. I don’t dispute it, but I would like to know. As stated, I believe that those institutions should only accept the top ten per cent of academic minds, this was their original purpose after all. However, this begs the question as to what kind of teacher would introduce themselves into such a system as the one I propose ? Risk and reward comes to mind, those willing to push themselves with teaching techniques that others may balk at in a sticker system. “learning to learn is the opposite of focused skill learning” is fair point, so I choose the former as this is only secondary level education. But unless you want a drone then the two are not mutually exclusive as subjects chosen to the strength of the child will naturally find them honing those skills themselves, without giving up on learning to learn. “integrate various forms and systems of knowledge” is just another way of saying experience. This is not going to come at that level, so it’s all about exploring, taking risks and learning from mistakes. Acknowledging mistakes is a quick way to learn. Why then can one not learn a skill the hard way ? @mistermack: One element of a Free School would be to ban Unionised practices i.e. striking. This could be a tacit agreement or part of a written contract. However, as the Index would dictate the value of the teacher, they would be less likely to waste money striking as the costs would be transparent to the investors (parents) as the budget spent is accounted on an open blackchain and striking would be a cost that they would have to explain. Children begin learning about who they are when the leave school. @Sensei : WHat’s this, am I being cancelled on a STEM forum ? I will downvote what I think merits that. You do not get anything more than your own say. nb. to those trying to invoke the religion in the UK known as the NHS, I would remind them that the UK was literally turned into a mini-USSR during lockdown precisely to protect the NHS and that every year during a Conservative government (or coalition) since 2010 the NHS’s budget had increased. It now at it’s highest level ever. However, I do not want that to take over this thread and am disheartened to see fully grown adults play such games on a STEM forum like this

Should read Unfiltered.

@CharonY: I believe I have stated that children should, at that level, be equipped with the skills to find meaningful employment to give them the means to be self-sufficient. It is also paramount that the child be taught how to learn, not what to learn, so that they may continue to later in life, as we all never really stop. Our views on the methods and content being taught parallel, but how you cannot see that those parents unhappy with this forced arrangement would not opt to split away and form a new school is beyond me. That is one of the key benefits of my proposal. As a libertarian I have a lot more faith in folk taking decisions collectively, with unfitted access to sensible discourse, not mob rule. Imagine crafting the American Constitution today; there would be no Freedom of Speech. I have to concede however that the system is not for everybody and that is why it is voluntary. I am quite content that if granted, people will be responsible, even for their mistakes. A community like this, or any other, is fertile ground for sharing what works and what doesn't, as so many new schools will be trying different things, the risk factor must be communicated up front. I refute your claim that the end product cannot be known, of course it can, it's what tertiary level entry requires or the jobs market i.e. being requested back by your apprentice work placement. The trouble being that too many avenues leaves children lost and fewer resources for those that they are more adept in. A child often does not know what they want, freedom can be a curse. All three parties working together to create a clear path for them to succeed is going to attract more focused parents/children and so they system will develop its culture - but it's not for all. @Sensei: I'd rather facts over philosophy, as the system I propose already exists, in both systems. The only difference is that the parents have more control. Once again, any input on the relevant metrics that a school looks for in a teacher, in order to make the index better, would be welcome.

Come on guys. What is the present criteria for hiring a teacher (outside STEM) ?

@Phi for All: I do appreciate your position being from the North Americas, but my focus is on the UK system and I maintain that there is sufficient funding for education. No doubt you are right, I am not one for centralised control. Such matters would become glaringly obvious when parents forge one-to-one relationships with the schools. This is another disruptive element to the system, albeit an unforeseen one. As you know the current budget does not stretch to all areas equally, or fully, but then most children do not need to learn everything and so those choices will be in the hands of the parents (the idea that the children are not consulted will become clear when they struggle to show enthusiasm, or keep up). The elephant is so big now that if you can't see it then you don't want to. Giving the parents the ability to wrestle the curriculum away from certain embedded interest groups would surely leave them at a loss, but those funds would then be put to the use that the parents deem a greater imperative (and it is their money after all). You cannot ignore what is going on in Western education right now and a lot of parents are not happy about it. Acknowledging that no two pupils are the same is a good start and I don't detect that you'd artificially burden those that can move ahead faster, simply worry about those that (by comparison) cannot. Well, that's life. In fact, that is genetics and nothing is going to alter that. The system would I suppose focus the minds of those less able to move where they can cope. It will burn some, of course, but perhaps not those that wish to participate. Again, this is a voluntary system. But I cannot pretend it will not attract the most enthusiastic and able. The process of selection cannot be so mysterious that it requires a God like ability to select the right person, probation if anything will atone for that. I genuinely would like to know what kind of criteria is sought after. If you're scared of this system then at least try to make it work in its embryonic state, because it will likely become dominant.

The system I propose doesn't exclusively give the parents complete control, as they must power share with other (albeit like-minded) parents, but also with approval of the school and its teachers; of whom would be scavenged from a free floating index, so the conditions have to be right. Once again, what is the criteria to be met when looking for a new teacher outside of STEM subjects please.