Poor pupils face a "double disadvantage"

[fez]

On that note, if you do have average students who are willing to put some effort in, do you think they would do better in a good school compared to a bad school?.

How about the outstanding students?, in a terrible school they will be very limited by either the quality of the teachers, lack of equipment, poor facilities & lacking advanced classes.

Most schools in poor areas don't even put forward students to progress beyond GCSE regardless of how well they perform (compared to higher quality schools which have advanced classes beyond GCSE).

You may be right that the very bottom dregs who don't care one bit about education one bit won't benefit from it, but what about all the other students - the mid/high achievers who are held back by a low standard of education?.

Again you are missing the bigger picture. Its not about certain pupils but the school in general. Teachers get to the stage where they simply don't care about their job because if they did, they would cry. Those teachers are not necessarily poor teachers, they are a victim of a system that allows kids to do what they like with little consequence.

For those exceptional / average pupils that do want to work, what will be better, a school that has good teachers that are not allowed to teach for the reasons I have mentioned or a school that has average teachers that are allowed to teach.

GCSE's are not hard but you need to have the attention of the class and the support of the parents to enforce punishments for bad behaviour.

I don't know if you have been to some of these really bad schools but they are horrendous. The teachers are mostly on the brink of quitting or medical leave for stress.

The last school my mum worked at is a prime example. The teachers are routinely sworn at and physically intimidated and the kids know the teachers cannot respond in kind. When a teacher took a kids mobile off them in class for texting the entire lesson the dad came down and threatened to beat the **** out of them for daring to tell his kid what to do.

When a teacher asked a 14 year old girl the other day what she had planned for the weekend she said "I'm gonna go out and get ****ed and laid". Is that the schools influence or the lack of parents with even a passing interest in their daughters upbringing.

 

[elmarko]

Again you are missing the bigger picture. Its not about certain pupils but the school in general. Teachers get to the stage where they simply don't care about their job because if they did, they would cry. Those teachers are not necessarily poor teachers, they are a victim of a system that allows kids to do what they like with little consequence.

For those exceptional / average pupils that do want to work, what will be better, a school that has good teachers that are not allowed to teach for the reasons I have mentioned or a school that has average teachers that are allowed to teach.

GCSE's are not hard but you need to have the attention of the class and the support of the parents to enforce punishments for bad behaviour.

I don't know if you have been to some of these really bad schools but they are horrendous. The teachers are mostly on the brink of quitting or medical leave for stress.

The last school my mum worked at is a prime example. The teachers are routinely sworn at and physically intimidated and the kids know the teachers cannot respond in kind.

When a teacher asked a 14 year old girl the other day what she had planned for the weekend she said "I'm gonna go out and get ****ed and laid". Is that the schools influence or the lack of parents with even a passing interest in their daughters upbringing.

But you seem to be ignoring the main still point.

Based on everything you said, a good student who just happens to have financially poor parents (Who give them a good upbringing, moral values etc) would suffer a lower standard of education compared to a child from a rich area due to nothing but socio-economic class of the parents (location they are able to buy a house).

Is that a fair system?, or that equality of opportunity?.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Regarding the last point, the article pointed our that during Labour these schools were put into poor areas - which aids in reducing inequality of opportunity.

Keep up.

Did this help, or was this a complete waste of money?

I don't give a ****, at all, about people being poor, or rich, poor people are NOT incapable or stupid, people who CHOOSE not to make much effort with education get no where in education. People who CHOOSE to work hard in education can go all the way no problem.

Personal god damned responsibility, I'm poor, so we should spend more on schools to FORCE my children to do well, blah blah blah.

The best students have parents who bothered with education AND bother to teach and encourage their children rather than leave it purely to schools. Bad parents are to blame for bad education, and that applies just as much to rich people as poor people.

The other simple fact is, firstly regional pay(not religional ) will actually increase the pay parity between inner city london(probably the worst schools) and some school in Oxford, NOT make it worse, it will make it more worthwhile to teach in worse schools financially. Secondly the most important part of the article, full stop is

Separate research by the Sutton Trust says that over a school year pupils from the poorest backgrounds gain 18 months' worth of learning with strong teachers. This compares with six months' worth of learning with weaker teachers.

This is where the "year" comes from, NOT the schools location, NOT the wealth of the child, NOT the cost of the school.... but good and bad teachers.

As said regional pay means right now a teacher in central london and middle of bumsville no where get paid the same, and the teacher in London with FAR higher costs of living is essentially making several thousand less, with a much lower quality of life, so where do the worst teachers end up and where do the best teachers end up? Regional pay is killing public service and forcing those that won't be hired anywhere else to get the jobs no one else wants, IE less money in worse area's.

The problem is POOR TEACHERS, always has been and always will be. With education standards slipping most teachers are getting worse anyway. You've got stupid schemes like Labour's "here have 5k if you become a teacher scheme" which encourages loads of people who really have no clue what they want to do, or don't want to be teachers, getting into it for financial gain, and end up lacklustre teachers, with no drive, with no care and no willingness to work hard in the industry.

Either way, I want any money in education spent in the most effective way possible, NOT the most political way, the best bang for buck, nothing more or less, where ever that happens to be. Labour increased spending massively and got zero results.

The biggest healthy change to education will not come from teachers, equipment, money, location, schools being built, but from ATTITUDE changes in children in education which will by and large come from their parents.

 

[fez]

Based on everything you said, a good student who just happens to have financially poor parents (Who give them a good upbringing, moral values etc) would suffer a lower standard of education compared to a child from a rich area due to nothing but socio-economic class of the parents (location they are able to buy a house).

Is that a fair system?, or that equality of opportunity?.

That is exactly what I am saying but putting a good new school into a bad area will not make that any better. It will just drag the nice new school down to the level of the other schools around there.

There is no such thing as equality of opportunity and if they want to make it as equal as possible they need to address bad parenting. They claim the "bad schools" are the problem when it is the bad students and parents that are making a bad school.


A schools quality is massively dictated by the pupils behaviour it takes in so why do you think that new schools in these areas will lead to a better standard of education?

 

[Threepwood]

I didn't realise being poor meant you were less intelligent.

To quickly pick up on this. There is a direct correlation between how many different words a child hears as they are growing up and their adult IQ.

Poor families, for generations, have had less education and therefore a smaller reservoir of words in their vocabulary.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important that children have stories read to them throughout their childhood. Also why mixing with as many different people (different word banks) as possible.

 

[Trifid]

TLDR version of this post: When someone leaves school, they should be an independent employable adult that you would want working for you.

I didn't realise being poor meant you were less intelligent. Being lazy makes you thick, you set your own limitations and no one else

I think you've missed the mark with being lazy makes you thick. It makes you underachieve, which is different. I’ve met several people who are obviously very intelligent but haven’t really done much with it because they are lazy. I’ve also met people who are intelligent and have/had amazing careers.

It's not the schools or the teachers or the money - it's a cultural thing.

The only solution is to take the children out of the culture of under-achievment and place them in one of learning and excellence.

Enforced boarding for all children from age 6 to 18? It would no doubt work wonders for currently disadvantaged children but I don't think society would accept it.

I completely agree with you here but I think it's possible to get the same (or similar) result without taking children away from their parents for their whole childhood. They'll be strangers to one another when they return. And it isn't something I would want to see in a country where there is free will. What I'd like to see is the school system completely changed as I don't think it works particularly well, firstly there is too much holiday time, 1 week for Summer, Christmas and Easter plus a 10 days to take off any time they wish for a yearly holiday or take at their leisure and they must catch up on any work missed (can be done through the internet as e-lessons).

In my experience by the time I started GCSEs I was bored of school and did the minimum work I could get away, the only subject I tried in I got an A, the rest were B's or C's. My A levels were even poorer, except for the only module where I was interested and got an A in. For this reason I have given some thought in how I think the school system can be improved.

I think in primary school I'd like to see children taught how to think independently. I have no idea how to teach this, but maybe give them easy puzzles to think through and work out? Riddles and so on. I'd be open to suggestions on those how are more familiar with a class of 4-10 year olds.

In secondary school I'd want to see more life skills so they can do more things themselves for example more/better cooking lessons how to do car and home maintenance. Don't spoon feed them how to do everything but teach them things to look out for when doing this. Pupils should be able to leave school knowing how to write letters and decent basic maths skills ("how do you do a percentage again?" I despair). Lessons should also be faster paced with revision lessons thrown in as they go.

I think at the age of 15 basic army training should be mandatory for everyone to enforce a fitness regime that would help reduce obesity and would also give everyone valuable skills that the army can offer. There would also be no place for different classes of society. Everyone is mixed up with others around the country and backgrounds. P.E lessons in secondary school would aim to prepare everyone for this culture shock.

People will then be given a choice of staying with the army or returning to further/higher education for 3/4/5 more years (free). If they opt to go into education then they pick a career to go into and get taught through from GCSE/A level all the way to degree standard. As the course approaches the close (maybe 6-12 months before the end?) they can line themselves up a job to go straight into. For those who are destined to not perform can opt out and join the army again or find a unskilled job after 1 year.

 

[robgmun]

...

 

[robgmun]

To quickly pick up on this. There is a direct correlation between how many different words a child hears as they are growing up and their adult IQ.

Poor families, for generations, have had less education and therefore a smaller reservoir of words in their vocabulary.

This is one of the reasons why it is so important that children have stories read to them throughout their childhood. Also why mixing with as many different people (different word banks) as possible.

That's interesting. Because my parents were forgieners i grew up listening/speaking two languages. English and Spanish. At age 12 i had an IQ of 146. (my parents tried to hide this from me as they didn't want to make my older brother feel bad because he only got 120 when we both took the test at the same time, i found the results few years later).

Also when i was younger my mother would read to me, she would try even through her english wasn't great.

 

[D.P.]

Bringing back the cane would go along way in improving schooling in poorer areas, and I am only half joking with that!

The only reasons schools in deprived areas are performing worse is due to discipline.

The quality if teaching has pretty minimal effect. I had terrible teachers but they handed out the course text-books which enabled me to learn by myself with help from my parents. A good teacher is a great asset but they are very rare, and not at all a requirement to get a good education.

being bullied, threatened with knifes, surrounded by drug users, being too scared to go to school, being beaten senseless, having idiots set of the fire-alarms constantly all impacts ones education far more than some arbitrary measurement of a school, performance.In an atmosphere where no one wants to learn then the quality of teaching is irrelevant.

Schools in many of the deprived areas are more like a public baby-sitting service rather than a teaching establishment.


I wonder if schools in such areas could move towards some kind of military academy with strict discipline and a good mixture of physical exercise, training and general education.

 

[robgmun]

The question is, what do you and your brother each do, nowadays?

I work as an IT Consultant and he works for the Ministry of Defense. He's done quite well for himself considering he dropped out of uni. Perversely he got a lot more pressure from my parents then i did about study, which i think contributed to his lack of interest.

 

[Xordium]

The quality if teaching has pretty minimal effect.

Strange how the research shows that an initially poorly developed child going to a good school will overtake a initially well developed child going to a bad school by the age of seven ... but hey ho wouldn't what to shatter your prejudices. Not that I am saying that discipline is not beneficial because that is also highly indicated as a good thing I am just saying your argument is overly simplistic.

 

[D.P.]

Strange how the research shows that an initially poorly developed child going to a good school will overtake a initially well developed child going to a bad school by the age of seven ... but hey ho wouldn't what to shatter your prejudices. Not that I am saying that discipline is not beneficial because that is also highly indicated as a good thing I am just saying your argument is overly simplistic.

That proves absolutely nothing about the effects of the education standard.
Actually, that research simply proves my point. OF course if you take a child from bad school and put them in a good school the child may do better, but that is not due to the quality of the teachers but the environmental effects, such as not getting knifed, not being in a bunch of drug abusers, less likely to get bullied.

The quality of teaching theoretically available at a poor school is not the problem, the problem is with the pupils themselves, their behaviors, their attitudes, disruption to the class, and their general ability.

To be a teacher you have to pass a certification process at higher education where you must show that you have sufficient abilities to teach children. These abilities don't magically disappear just because the median social-economic status in the school district is lower than the national average.

Any teacher who is genuinely incapable of teaching willing children should be fired and their license revoked.

 

[Xordium]

That proves absolutely nothing about the effects of the education standard.

Actually it does when it takes that into account but like I say about religious types you can't argue someone out of a position they have never argued themselves into.

 

[D.P.]

Actually it does when it takes that into account but like I say about religious types you can't argue someone out of a position they have never argued themselves into.

Show me this peer reviewed journal research, I have full access to most common journals. I would be very interested in how environmental factors in the school are accounted for, because actually it is physically impossible.


Maybe you should apply your own advice to yourself.

 

[D.P.]

You're assuming the bar is high enough, or that mere competency is enough to teach well.

If the teaching qualifications are not adequate then therein lies the problem which should be rectified.

But as I said, putting good teachers in a bad school does not have an effect on performance. I have read of about schools is the poorest areas where there are metal detectors to search for knives, needles and in the US guns, the teachers are trained in self-defense and always carry a personal alarm, the corridors are patrolled by effectively bouncers/security guards to break up fights and protect the teachers, many of the children sadly have aids which they were born with as their mother was sharing needles.
Doesn't matter what quality the teachers such schools have, it doesn't make a jot of difference.

 

[No1newts]

Yes being poor is a disadvantage, Yes being in a weak school is a disadvantage. But if you have the willingness to learn and you realise from early on that getting good grades is your ticket out of a poor life then both those things make no difference to how well you do at school.

Good post.

I came from a family of an low/average income and went one of the worst schools, actually probably the worst, in my area. None of my family including aunties, uncles, cousins, anyone had ever been into education beyond a college environment.

I'm not a naturally brainy person but I decided I wanted better for myself, I wanted to be a solicitor. I knuckled down and got 3rd best grades in my whole school, I went to college and got good A levels and ended up at one of the top 10 universities in the UK studying law. I left uni to a job earning almost double the UK average salary and more than both my parents salaries combined.

People are lazy and give in too easily and this state is more than happy to be a crutch they can rely upon for the rest of their lives rather than making them make something of their lives if they simply put a little effort into life.

 

[Bear]

The differences is I think we should be following the guidelines or the scientific community as opposed to blind prejudice, ideology or subjective experience.

Scientific community ? Are you talking about the sandal white sock wearing social sciences lot and calling them the scienific community ?

 

[Bear]

You avoided the question.

Do you honestly believe that an individual occurrence is evidence against the point earlier in the thread?.

Yes but not statisically relevant enough. It still doesnt take away that it is evidence just that there needs to be more of them.

 

[Xordium]

Show me this peer reviewed journal research, I have full access to most common journals. I would be very interested in how environmental factors in the school are accounted for, because actually it is physically impossible.

Maybe you should apply your own advice to yourself.

I said accounted for not eliminated I am sure you appreciate there is a big difference. Anyway I believe the general onus is on the person making the claims not the person who is saying "umm don't you think that is a bit simplistic" so how about you provide a good peer reviewed article to demonstrate where I disagreed with you:

The quality if teaching has pretty minimal effect.

Because I think you are wrong and await your reply - in my eyes the quality of the teaching includes setting boundaries - you quite clearly disagree so go ahead and prove it. Because I don't see how you get one without the other. You apparently do. Applying your logic to the extreme you would be arguing that a school run by military police would be better than one run by well motivated and skilled teachers.

 

[Marmot]

I remember an English class at school once where this guy wouldn't stop bouncing a tennis ball at the back of the class. The teacher asked him to stop and the guy didn't even acknowledge him, just kept bouncing the tennis ball. The teacher walked to the back of the class and confiscated the ball, before returning to his desk. Instead of behaving, the guy got up from his chair and walked to the front of the class and reclaimed his ball, before walking back to his seat to continue bouncing it. The teacher got pretty annoyed at this point and started threatening the guy with the usual, he strolled back to confiscate it but as he got close the kid jumped up from this seat and head-butted him. The teacher fell to the floor and the kid sat back down and started bouncing his ball again.

Cool story? Some people just don't want to learn.