Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Schools etc. [was:RE: accu-general: Where to setup web site]

[ian]

On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 13:30, PFJ wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > I personally believe that the best way to fix education (and 
> > > the NHS) is
> > > for parliment to stop trying to run them and give control totally to
> > > those who know what they're doing. However, that is not the point...
> > 
> > Not to get into a political discussion, (oops I think we already did!)
> > Do you mean private companies?  That sounds good but they would
> > concentrate on the profitable parts.
> 
> I don't think private companies are a good idea.

Why not? We are a private company and we are more able and less
expensive than a lot of public sector provision that actually insists
schools don#t use free software.

>  The NHS (and other
> sectors like that, including education) should be run by those who know
> the sector and what is actually best for it. 

Which could be a private company like ours. I'll guarantee we know more
about the specialist schools programme than *any* LEA, and we wil
generally be less expensive.

> I know of plenty of high
> ups in education who would turn the clock back academically to 1988
> [first GCSE exams] and go from there to get rid of the mismanagement.

Well I have been involved with education since well before 1988 and
there was plenty of mismanagement before that date.

> The NHS was better run when the government let surgeries negotiate their
> own contracts with hospitals - it really did shake a lot of things up
> for the good. It was destroyed over night when they were told they could
> no longer manage themselves.

So you are in favour of grant maintained schools then?

> It may be that getting the likes of Sony to help in the management and
> promotion would be a good thing, but their remit would have to come
> second place to what is actually required - a decent basis for our
> children (or if you're one of our younger members, for you continued
> education) to learn in.

Why Sony? What the f do they know about education? Use someone who knows
something and has some experience at grass roots level but also has
business experience. These people exist, Yo don't have to rush off to an
irrelevant brand name for credibility. Next you will be saying get MS to
do it ;-)

> Case in point. My big sis has three kids and they live out in some
> backwater on the very outskirts of Preston. Two of her three girls go to
> the local primary school (the third goes in September, the first moves
> to juniors). The school has 2 class rooms, a hall, a headmaster, a
> secretary and 2 teachers. The numbers warrant another teacher. For the
> past couple of years the school has muddled through, but always with the
> Christmas concert being nothing more than a school funds raiser. They
> are depleated in terms of books and resources. This is all down to the
> current provision for funding. 

Really? How do you know it isn't simply poor management? Other primaries
manage so it must be possible. Answer is you might be right, but yet
agiab you could be entirely misguided.

> Prior to the current funding structure,
> the school had all it needed and could afford nice things, it was self
> governing and had funds. 

GM or just LMS?

> When the last round of changes came back in,
> power was given back to the local LEA and the school suddenly found
> itself short of cash.

Ah. so disband LEAs. I can live with that, snag is that for small
primary schools there is not economy of scale so what do you propose for
solving that issue. Hint, its soluble but I'll leave that as an exercise
:-)

> > I believe it's already true that drug companies are unlikely to develop
> > treatments for conditions for which the market is small.
> 
> No. They are unlikely to develop treatments where there is little or no
> profit.

Or more like;y that they forecast a loss. I mean are you prepared to
lose to subsidise this because that's what you are asking them to do.

>  In a lot of cases, technologies (and drugs) for small markets
> usually yield big advantages. Look at ARM and RISC OS. ARM processors
> were originally built for RISC OS machines in a relatively small market.
> ARM is now one of the biggest chip designers around. RISC OS is used in
> set top boxes as well as anything else which requires NC like
> facilities.

Hm, ARM reasonable argument but I doubt the subsidise loss making
licenses. RISC OS? Not at all convinced its any sort of player anymore.

> > If not private companies, and not the govt. then who?
> 
> Those who actually work for the organisations. Many NHS managers would
> love to go back to the way it was before local bargaining came in (last
> election some time). Many schools would love to go back to self
> governing trusts again.

Many schools would like to go back to GM Status but many others would
shudder at the thought of taking away their security blanket.

> > I agree with the point about software though.  And I think more are
> > now discovering the strengths of Free software.
> 
> They are. Unfortunately, the terms of the licence means that even if a
> school has a PC running Linux/BSD/whatever not covered by the licence,
> they still have to pay. The company wins both ways - they get the same
> if a school uses their OS or not!

Only those on Microsoft Schools Agreement and I suspect not for too
long.

OOOps I named the company. Mea Culpa.
-- 
ian <address@hidden>