Yes, honestly, I think we’re just talking past each other again.
I meant that the government is beholden to companies like Tesco because, if they went arse-end-up, people would starve. Hence my arguments in favour of distributed systems (which fail gracefully, or adapt) rather than monoliths (which are brittle).
Why on earth would anyone advocate such a thing? I’m suggesting mechanisms by which those who want to be educated could access education, of one sort of another. I’d like this to see this happen (a) without them being harassed by those who are more interested in wreaking havoc than in learning how to spell and count, and (b) without the State spending an eye-watering amount of cash on the project, which is physically impossible in countries not still chugging along on the fumes of Empire.
You seem to value appearances over substance. Just because car thief Wayne is sent to school when he’s not out stealing cars, it doesn’t mean he’s actually being educated.
I know. I did get that bit. I responded in the same way: “yet”. The difference here is that I think that future possibility is a positive thing. The reason is that governments have no incentive to reduce costs. They simply take the bovine approach of assuming that a building costs this much to buy and run, salaries cost this much, equipment costs this much, etc. A school is a school is a school and it must follow a standard blueprint. Much like a transport company is a transport company, and if it doesn’t fulfil the blueprint then >DOES NOT COMPUTE >DIVIDE BY CHEESE ERROR >LAWYER ALLOCATION ERROR >RETRY OR REBOOT?
Profit-seeking enterprises are much better at reducing costs than governments. Contrary to left-leaning opinion, they don’t do this by shafting their workers, especially when their business success depends on a reputation for quality, and when quality depends on hiring excellent workers. Of course, I won’t deny that it doesn’t happen when quality is irrelevant, or can be hidden.
Consider Taiwan’s example: the buxiban system, which (it seems to me) is where 50%+ of the learning takes place. Inefficient, but apparently effective. I know someone who much prefers to work as a private teacher because (a) she gets more money and (b) she doesn’t have to put up with bureaucratic bullshit.
Possibly. So what? You’re being coy about exactly what options are available. Could this be because, in practice, there are none (apart from the one I suggested: flouting the law)?
It’s hard to put them anywhere else except on the street because that’s where they like going by default. There are of course plenty of other possibilities, but the British gov’t at least is extraordinarily uninventive in that regard.
I was specifically railing against the modern train of thought that goes like this:
- education is a right.
- the government has a responsibility to fund the fulfillment of that right.
- all people are equal.
- ergo all people should have access to tax-funded education, even when they’re little bastards.
I acknowledge that other countries haven’t gone down this road (yet), but since the above are quite common memes, it’s likely to spread.
I don’t think so. I know two people there who are teachers, and of course plenty of people who have (or are) kids going through the system. But yeah, it’s all a bit of a disaster over there.