http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mentalist

Ah, trust. That nebulous entity that somehow guides me to the same supermarket each week and allows Nike to build a huge business empire based around a tick.

You are right of course. Labour MPs used to say that they could ask farmers to write their manifesto for them and they would still go away and vote Conservative, and this is the same sort of thing.

There is, of course, a lot I disagree with in that green paper – there seem to be so many parts of it that are needlessly dictating policy from the centre

I don’t think the green paper is perfect (but given the current state of the system, very good would still be a huge improvement). I agree elements appear centrist, and it concerns me that some of the lessons of the Thatcher era (where, despite an instinct to spread out power, control was actually centralised in order to drive through the reforms that were needed) risk being repeated. I would very much hope that the supply side reform on its own would be enough to drive up standards. However, you have to take into account that the realities of government may well mean that supply side reform alone would just be too slow (not to mention, very difficult to sell to the general public in an election). There is always a balance to be met between what you would like to do and what you can achieve.

Anyway, this paper is going through a consultation phase at the moment so I hope that the final policy will reflect some of these concerns.

“Not really. To a child they both involve working around rules that don’t seem to make any sense but are there because they are there.”

Obviously you and I inhabit different universes.

Sanbikinoraion:

Perhaps you should look up the word “mentalist” in the dictionary. If you do, I think you will find that it refers to a stage magician who mimics mind-reading. Is that me?

What you took to be a smart**se gratuitous insult sends you landing flat on your face.

If you want to get people to listen to you and remember what you say, being what you call “strident” is one way to do it. Successful communicators understand that. Mr Clegg please note (I’m straining to recall something the guy has said).

Sorry. You’re right (at #36 at least!). I was under the impression that Tories were “pro” fixed-level vouchers.

There is, of course, a lot I disagree with in that green paper – there seem to be so many parts of it that are needlessly dictating policy from the centre (like the credits / debits thing), but on my specific allegation you are clearly correct.

Not really. To a child they both involve working around rules that don’t seem to make any sense but are there because they are there.

The short term, the marginal advantage in formally teaching grammar is actually fairly small (kids appear to pick up the rules of language easily enough by ear), although the long term impact can be considerably greater. I have lost track of the number of times I have had to sit down with people with Ph.D’s to explain very simple grammatical concepts, and I wouldn’t consider myself a natural linguist in the slightest (as my abysmal spelling shows).

From my experience, I believe something similar to be true of using uniforms although I can see I have going to have to dig around in the literature this w/e to satisfy your need for harder data (although, as discussed above) these things are incredibly hard to measure objectively.

There is a great deal of difference between teaching good English (more please!) and forcing people to wear clothing not of their choice without a justifiable reason.

I fail to see the moral equivalence between the two.

Let’s be clear about your position first. Are you against grammar and spelling being taught as they are restrictive?

Look, I am not trying to “convert” you here but what you have described as what you want is precisely what Gove outlined in his green paper last week (OK, not as vouchers, but as funding following the child within the state system and more difficult kids to teach having more money associated with them, which is functionally pretty much identical). So I don’t quite see how, from a rational point of view, you can slag off the Tory policy and then propose something identical. From a political point of view it might make sense to make out your opponents are unreasonable while you advocate identical policies but then it would be pretty hypocritical to go around shouting about introducing a “new type of politics”

“If so, I imagine that I probably am more authoritarian than you although I imagine 99+% of the country is with me on that point.”

You have evidence for your assertion, presumably?

Grow up!

I suspect that people would be far more likely to listen to you and appreciate your point of view if you acted less aggressively.

Well, it’s clear we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. I would have thought, though, that anyone advocating national-level policy should have evidence from studies on these two things that I suspect have both been studied a fair amount. Unless the evidence is clear cut, basing one’s party policy on them is irresponsible. More sensible to advocate studies and trials of alternate options or – heaven forbid – that you marketize the systems and let the market decide which way is actually better.

Vouchers, anyone?

(And not the half-assed Tory vouchers that subsidize middle class kids to escape to private schools, thanks – reverse-valued vouchers that are worth more to the poor than the rich)

Angus, where do you draw the line? Spelling and grammar are both constraining, let alone traditional essay structure. And rhyme? Would you advocate ignoring these?

If so, I imagine that I probably am more authoritarian than you although I imagine 99+% of the country is with me on that point.

I am saddened you feel no concern about being rude; I suppose you are like one of those Oxford “anti-fascist” protesters who see nothing wrong in shouting “kill Tryl” to make their point.

Thank you for your Sunday School homily.

What you have singularly failed to deliver is any kind of convincing justification for forcing your fellow citizens (who are not soldiers, policemen, postmen, etc)to wear uniforms.

I believe that depriving a human being of his or her liberty is acceptable only where there is an overwhelmingly powerful reason so to do.

Obviously – as an authoritarian conservative – you don’t.

I will be as rude to human rights violators as I feel is necessary to get my point across.

OK, lets look at your two points in more detail.

(1) because they are compulsory

As I pointed out above, at one level you can argue that uniforms are “illiberal” because they appear to be constraining children. And superficially this appears to me true. But lets look at this deeper. The whole of society runs on certain compulsions: “Thou shall not kill” and so on, down through all the intricacies of the statute book. At some point children have to learn this fact. Increasingly this is not being done at home for a number of reasons (parents are too busy, or never picked up this concept in the first place) so the burden is (rather unfairly in many ways) being passed to schools. Now, I am not going to say that uniforms are the only way of achieving this but they can be a useful tool. Personally, I would not be in favour of an edict from Whitehall saying that all schools should have uniforms, although I am also aware that the lack of uniform help children to pass though education without having to learn how to live within boundaries and that can present significant problems later in life.

(2) because they are degrading.

It is hard to know what you mean by this. Do you mean that children don’t like them? I wouldn’t expect children to necessarily like them. In fact I would expect (and hope) that they fight them. My mother recalls stories of all sorts of tricks the girls at her school used to try to push the limits of the uniform. But in this process they learn just as much as they will in a dozen “citizenship” lessons.

I have to say the caricature of me that you portray is most amusing. As it happens I was raised to be an artist (jackboots where strictly for ironic use only) and rebelled and moved into science. But I know enough art to realise that underneath a veneer of self-expression you need formidable draughtmanship. The same is true of children; yes we need to encourage self-expression but the solid foundations need to be there first or we are creating nothing but frauds.

School uniforms are unacceptable (1) because they are compulsory, and (2) because they are degrading.

I believe in freedom and treating people with respect. Evidently, you believe in neither.

Are you really that stupid? I have made the case for why I support uniforms above; do I have to spell it out again for you in thoughts of one syllable?

The problem with all these debates is, as you allude to, the fact that trying to control for other factors is incredibly hard. For this reason my wife, who works in this area, is a fan of qualitative studies (basically, educated anecdotal evidence). As a numbers man I am intrinsically skeptical of qualitative approaches although in this case I think she has a point (well, I have to agree or I will have to do all the housework )

The problem with standardisation is not the idea of standardisation as such, but what standardisation was used in this case. When I read a study like this I look at the way that the data is presented and get suspicious. It looks extremely likely to me that I could “standardise” the values to show that uniform make a huge improvement. And of course, the fact that the conclusion has picked one of the two subgroups that showed the effect the author was after adds to my suspicions.