Nhs

[Sharkith]

Xest,

finally you cite some evidence about the numbers issue and I am glad to see that things are in the process of changing. I was looking through OFSTED's reports on numbers and quality but the data was out of date - only 3 years ago they were still expressing concern about this because like dentistry for example the workforce is ageing. So it looks like they have got something right even if the graduate market in science is continuing to be competitive. That side of things is a mystery to me because we get on average 40-50 applicants for PhD's in pure science. In social science the pure scientists are even apply for PhD's with their Master in human genetics or biomaterials.

It always seems well over subscribed in the higher education sector. So this is a maystery to me. However I can accept this which was news to me - and good news too.

Are you suggesting that one particular large catchment area of 171 schools is particularly prone to teachers misusing there laptops and the trend is completely different in the rest of the country?

I don't know Xest - you were the one generalising. I only wanted to know what basis you had for that generalisation. I still don't think that your unstructured experience is good enough to justify saying what you said. However you are entitled to feel what you feel. Just don't ask me to have to agree.

As you keep putting it, where is your evidence that this area is prone to laptop misuse? More to the point, why would a single area even have this kind of issue over any other? Whilst you might expect something like this to spread through one school or so, there's absolutely no logical reason why laptop misuse would spead through a single catchment area then stop.

Yes Xest there is not logical reason but there might be an empricial reason. However I still cannot see anything that shows it. If they have evaluated the scheme (which as I said, I seriously doubt) then it might be good to see just what has happened. It is a lot of money and of course I agreed it doesn't seem to have been a well thought out scheme. Like I said your point about the scheme was a good one I just think you over extended your argument by hitting on the whole group because of your personal experience.

You keep asking me evidence and whilst what I've provided isn't terribly brilliant evidence, because well, funnily enough there aren't any official studies about teacher laptop useage habits and so on, but where is your evidence on the contrary? Have you been to a sample of over 100 schools and spoken to thousands of teachers therefore putting you in a position to comment on the subject?

This is the crux - Xest maybe you could ask the Chief educational officer if they have evaluated the scheme yet? This is exactly my point. Why implement a scheme that is so costly and never evaluate it? Of course I have not been to over 100 schools to evaluate it but I am not the one saying that teachers abused the system and tax payers money. So the burden of proof is not with me it is with you - you made the point after all.

Thought not. Perhaps you're just being overly defensive without any real evidence yourself because your sister is a teacher?

Nope this is not something I am taking personally. I just find your generalisation unwarranted and I felt I should point that out. I am entitled to do that surely?

FYI my sister has her own computer and the laptops are allowed out of school under very tight rules. So maybe the way they are used varies by administrative district. Who knows. I am certainly not going to turn around and say that 'they' abuse the sytem.

Ok will leave this now I think I will email the link to this discussion to the NUT. They might even give you an offical response about the negative opinions you seem to have of their members.

:sharkith:

[Xest]

Yes Xest there is not logical reason but there might be an empricial reason. However I still cannot see anything that shows it. If they have evaluated the scheme (which as I said, I seriously doubt) then it might be good to see just what has happened. It is a lot of money and of course I agreed it doesn't seem to have been a well thought out scheme. Like I said your point about the scheme was a good one I just think you over extended your argument by hitting on the whole group because of your personal experience.

The issue is that schools decide what happens with the laptops, if it was done right, it would be the IT people deciding what's done with them and hence being allowed to apply policies and restrictions to the laptop to ensure the laptops couldn't be used for personal stuff, i.e. ensuring teachers can't install games on the laptops.

This is the crux - Xest maybe you could ask the Chief educational officer if they have evaluated the scheme yet? This is exactly my point.

See above, the money goes to the schools, schools buy the laptops, schools do what they want with the laptops, at no point does anyone outside the school have any control of what the laptops are used for or how they're used.

So the burden of proof is not with me it is with you - you made the point after all.

As I say the proof is what I've seen with my own eyes, it's entirely upto you whether you beleive it or not. That's not to say I can't make comments based on the evidence I've seen however without being expected to write everything I've ever seen down to "prove" it.

Ok will leave this now I think I will email the link to this discussion to the NUT. They might even give you an offical response about the negative opinions you seem to have of their members.

What would it acheive? Maybe pass it to Ruth Kelly or at least her department who actually can take note and do some realistic and fair research however passing it to the NUT Will only provide a horribly biased response, Unions will protect their members whether they're in the wrong or not. The problem with unions is if they don't do everything their members want - even if it's in the wrong, then they wont have any members. That said, the kind of over the top propaganda you might expect from them could produce some extremely amusing reading so go for it

[Sharkith]

I was toying with the notion of letting the NUT in for exactly the same reasons.

Last message is a fair apprasial I know schools are largely independent now - that makes the policy even more dubious. Anyway was a decent discussion in the end. /closed

[Lairiodd]

As for what constitutes necessary vs. elective procedures, that's very loaded as well. We spend a huge amount of money giving people fertility treatment for example. Those people will not die if they don't have babies.

Providing glasses allows people to see properly and is low cost, providing laser treatment allows people to see properly (at higher risk btw) and costs more. If you say the government must provide treatment for people with poor vision, that should mean that the government provides the basic treatment and advanced (expensive) treatment should have to be paid for by the person (or by their insurance company).

But the majority of people probably support their right to have babies.

This one is a little more difficult ... I guess having children is a fundamental human function and if it doesn't work maybe it should be covered for the same reason that people with life threatening conditions should be covered.

However, it really should be a matter for the individual to decide for themselves how much medical cover they want. Insurance allows a person to decide what level of cover they want before they get sick.

Some people do no doubt abuse the system. But to seperate out the abusers from those in genuine need isn't realistically possible without risking denial of treatment to the genuinely ill & unfortunate.

One issue here is that there isn't a section of people who are abusers and non-abuserrs. Everyone falls somewhere in the middle and it is in everyone's individual interest to shift slightly towards the more abuser side. This leads to the system being more abused.

A society should always be judged on how it treats it's most vulnerable members; the old, the young, the sick, the poor, the disenfranchised. I don't want to live in a society that puts the wealth of majority above the health of the poorest people.

Actually, wealth leads to health. If you hurt the economy, that means less money to spend on healthcare next year. The problem is that people who advocate non-market mechanisms don't see the people who lose out down the road..