Tory manifesto proposes measures to boost house prices

Really2

sjaypink wrote: »

But they are a very good shag ..........? :cool:

Gordon, Darling or Prescot._pale_ TBF I think you may be safe from Mandleson.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

why should all schools be the same when all children are different? People have different skills and talents, strengths and weaknesses. IMO all children should have access to an education system which can best cater to their needs, which is not the same as all schools being the same, I think. I'm not a parent though...

of course all children are different. but why not make all schools able to cater to the needs of every child? far better than total segregation imho. and avoids pigeon holing children. the current system in which parents fight it out to get their children into what they consider the 'best' schools is what results when you have different types of schools acheiving different standards and offering different facilities. educational apartheid is not a good thing. that is not to say all children should be taught exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. but i don't think they should go off to a completely different building to their neighbour every day just by virtue of the fact one was considered more academic than the other in some sort of exam at the age of 11.

how would you assess the difference of each child and assign schools on that basis lir?

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

Why is it when ever I get involved in a debate with a labour supporter on here I feel like I am talking to someone in an abusive relationship.

They Control you, have spent your money, got you in debt, cheated on you, lied to keep you yet no matter how much it is shown to them they dig their heels in hope that one day they will change and that they are "the only one" for them.

why is it whenever i get involved in a debate with some labour bashers on here i feel like i am talking to an abusive ex partner.

they tried to control you, spent your money, got you in debt, cheated on you, lied to keep you, won't accept that you don't want to go back to them or that although you don't believe in "the only one" or perfect endings you are happy in your current relationship.

they can usually be spotted by their name calling, broad generalisations, reluctance to keep the debate to the issues and attempts to make you look small and worthless.:p

whathavewedone

It's impossible for one school to all meet every child's needs. Common sense tells you that. How can a teacher pitch a lesson to 30 children with different needs and abilities and get the best out of all them?

I could witter on about how research shows that children do better if they are streamed according to ability, that children who are, for example, deaf or autistic do better at special schools than they do if they are just bunged into a class of 30 in an ordinary school, but I know I'll be wasting my time with Ninky who will probably post a link to some report published by a left wing thinktank who found that the opposite was true.

Ideology is all very well but you have to be pragmatic as well and if something doesn't work then the whole idea has to be scrapped, irrespective of how well intentioned it was to begin with.

ninky_2

whathavewedone wrote: »

It's impossible for one school to all meet every child's needs. Common sense tells you that. How can a teacher pitch a lesson to 30 children with different needs and abilities and get the best out of all them?

I could witter on about how research shows that children do better if they are streamed according to ability, that children who are, for example, deaf or autistic do better at special schools than they do if they are just bunged into a class of 30 in an ordinary school, but I know I'll be wasting my time with Ninky who will probably post a link to some report published by a left wing thinktank who found that the opposite was true.

Ideology is all very well but you have to be pragmatic as well and if something doesn't work then the whole idea has to be scrapped, irrespective of how well intentioned it was to begin with.

you don't have to have different schools to stream or set children. you don't have to bung deaf or autistic children into a class of 30 and expect them to survive.

you can teach in different classes for different lessons. however, it is easier to adapt to a child's changing needs by changing class than it is to get them changed to a different school - and far less disruptive.

how do we expect children to grow up understanding the needs or being familiar with people who are different to them if we have educational apartheid?

and to me one of the worst aspects of these is faith based schools. ghettoising from childhood.

whathavewedone

Cut out the emotional language eh?

I think you have issues. I sometimes wonder whether a lot of people deciding educational policy within the Labour party also do.

I don't want my children to be taught under a regime thought up by a bunch of screwed up people with chips on their shoulders.

So since I can't afford private education I'll just have to vote tory then

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

you don't have to have different schools to stream or set children. you don't have to bung deaf or autistic children into a class of 30 and expect them to survive.

you can teach in different classes for different lessons. however, it is easier to adapt to a child's changing needs by changing class than it is to get them changed to a different school - and far less disruptive.

how do we expect children to grow up understanding the needs or being familiar with people who are different to them if we have educational apartheid?

and to me one of the worst aspects of these is faith based schools. ghettoising from childhood.

To have every option available for very child in every school is a very, very expensive way and I'm not sure would be either wholly successful for the kids with not0-average needs or good at identifying particular talent.

I went to two specialist schools, of the several schools I attend. For much of secondary school it was felt that some of my needs were best met by one school and some by a ''standard'' environment. So...I went to a ''normal'' private girls 4 days a week and the ''special'' one twice a week. I was immensely lucky that both my education needs were met, and for me the solution was fairly ideal, both educationally and socially, disruptive? Perhaps, it might not have suited everyone, but dealing with that was part of what made it right for me. In addition the ''normal'' school was also streamed in many classes.

I mixed with a range of people at both schools, and more importantly socially, through my family and neighbourhood.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

To have every option available for very child in every school is a very, very expensive way and I'm not sure would be either wholly successful for the kids with not0-average needs or good at identifying particular talent.

I went to two specialist schools, of the several schools I attend. For much of secondary school it was felt that some of my needs were best met by one school and some by a ''standard'' environment. So...I went to a ''normal'' private girls 4 days a week and the ''special'' one twice a week. I was immensely lucky that both my education needs were met, and for me the solution was fairly ideal, both educationally and socially, disruptive? Perhaps, it might not have suited everyone, but dealing with that was part of what made it right for me. In addition the ''normal'' school was also streamed in many classes.

I mixed with a range of people at both schools, and more importantly socially, through my family and neighbourhood.

given that state schools are generally not boarding schools (and i don't think most people would want them to be so), how is providing lots of different schools in the same area cheaper than providing fewer larger schools with all the facilities in the same area?

it's like the difference between tesco and lots of individual shops. it is cheaper to provide the choice of all the different things people want to put in their basket in tesco and more available to all than lots of different shops, most of which don't have everything you want.

i find it interesting when those who enjoyed a private education choose to comment on how state schooling should be structured. my state comprehensive school offered facilities a variety of needs under one roof and pretty successfully too. of course there were improvements that could have been made but not by splitting the children up into seperate schools.

i just don't buy that all children are so very different to each other. i think there is a range of children in the middle for which a type of schooling is needed and then you have the very bright and those with learning difficulties. all these can be catered for in one school. there may be a case for those with very particularly disablilities needing other facilities and schooling but that is not the basis for having lots of seperate schools.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

given that state schools are generally not boarding schools (and i don't think most people would want them to be so), how is providing lots of different schools in the same area cheaper than providing fewer larger schools with all the facilities in the same area?

Because of the need for more specialise teachers to teach those with specific talents or difficulties.
it's like the difference between tesco and lots of individual shops. it is cheaper to provide the choice of all the different things people want to put in their basket in tesco and more available to all than lots of different shops, most of which don't have everything you want.

Cheaper...but at what cost?

i find it interesting when those who enjoyed a private education choose to comment on how state schooling should be structured. my state comprehensive school offered facilities a variety of needs under one roof and pretty successfully too. of course there were improvements that could have been made but not by splitting the children up into seperate schools.

So you want a scoiety where wwe are all equal as long as some of us don't speak up? Ninky, that's(edit) dangerous IMO.... The same could be said of your comments...and mine...as those who do not have children on schools at all. My private school also offered for a variety of academic needs successfully, as I guess the majority of all schools do.

i just don't buy that all children are so very different to each other. i think there is a range of children in the middle for which a type of schooling is needed and then you have the very bright and those with learning difficulties. all these can be catered for in one school. there may be a case for those with very particularly disablilities needing other facilities and schooling but that is not the basis for having lots of seperate schools.

It seems you are talking very specifically about the education in traditional school subjects to traditional careers. Some specialties can be easily met in such schools...e.g. the 11 year old with a peculiarly strong mathematical ability, I presume, could be given work for children generally much older. The child who might, for example, be a particularly talented musician might need the type of music education not at a ''normal'' school to realise his talents. this teacher might be unsuitable for teaching ''normally'' keen musicians, but great for the talented over a wider geographical area. I guess it gets harder as kids get older and their talents increasing outstrip the ''standard'' provision.

fwiw my husbands state european eductation was excellent. Really, really good. He went to a liceo classico, a little like a grammar school, where he studied a broader range of subjects to 18/19 years old, but focused on his academic talents/needs. I think my father's state education was brilliant, of the type rarely seen, where he had great support personally from teachers as well as academically, he was very sad to have to leave school when he did. As well state educated as he was he had the choice of schools for me and chose how he felt was appropriate. It was no case of old school ties...I guess that is uncomfortable for those who would like to believe it was.

,

tara747

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

I warned we were in for this on HPC last year. Didn't go down well!

http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Housing.aspx


Strengthen shared ownership schemes which allow those on low-to-middle incomes to own or part-own their home.
We will offer tenants with a record of five years’ good behaviour a 10 per cent equity share in their social rented property, which can be cashed in when they want to move up the housing ladder
Abolish the unelected, bureaucratic tier of regional planning and return power to local communities and their elected councillors to protect their Green Belt and determine the right level of development

I'm not sure which one is the worst. Though giving social tenants a free deposit worth 10% of their property whilst other people have to work their !!!! off to save it up is particularly galling. We're talking five figures handouts here. W*nkers, the lot of them.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

robin_banks wrote: »

Shared ownership is not low cost home ownership, why can't politicians see this ?.

Exactly.