So much of this was covered in the original UBI thread, I'm not going to rehash it here. Especially as you answered a question I never asked.
He did say equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Isn't that what you're always espousing?
After 16 years i've left local gov
- Thread starter [TFU] Thegoon84
- Start date
- Status
So much of this was covered in the original UBI thread, I'm not going to rehash it here. Especially as you answered a question I never asked.
He did say equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Isn't that what you're always espousing?
So much of this was covered in the original UBI thread, I'm not going to rehash it here. Especially as you answered a question I never asked.
He did say equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Isn't that what you're always espousing?
but grammar schools get slammed for not being equal?
everyone has the same chance at the tests?
and he did answer your question but you cut it out deliberately
no the solution is basically what we are doing now, improve year on year, decade on decade on the idea that in centuries of effort we will finally get there.
"a civilization grows great when old men plant tress in whose shade they will never sit"
is something we could do well with remembering, everyone is focused on a 5 year turn around when it isn't its a multi generation effort.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with Grammar Schools is that selection is based on the results of a single test at a fixed age. There's a whole host of reasons why this is clearly a bad idea.
In Germany, they have a three-tiered secondary school system and children are assessed on an ongoing basis throughout their education. There's a much smaller margin for error and more opportunity to move between schools as a child develops.
To be honest, I don't believe we need to adopt the German system, because setting children within a single school based on their ability can achieve the same result and it's much easier to move from one set to another than it is to move school.
Well please elaborate how it's not possible, because a lot of anecdotes I've been hearing from people working at food banks, landlords, carers etc have said it does happen.
Or is it all made up to fit a "Tories are evil" narrative?
UC had cross party support so bashing the Tories for the policy is pointless because Labour and Lib Dems also wanted it to come in. The implementation issues sit firmly with the DWP rather than any political party. That being said not getting money for 4 weeks is by design, its a bit like having a job....
UC really wasn't designed to reduce the JSA bill, there is plenty of 'encouragement' for people to properly look for a job as it is. People that used to claim tax credits on the other hand will be 'encouraged' to move into full time work if they are not already doing full time hours. It's also designed to make temp work more attractive.
Under the current system a couple can claim thousands in tax credits and housing benefit by working a paltry 24 hours a week until their youngest child is 18. That's just 12 hours each and there is no requirement to increase that on tax credits. Same rules aply for a single parent except the hours are reduced to 16.
It's reasonable that people in those groups are 'encouraged' seek to increase their hours to keep their benefits under UC, especially as their children get older. Most households both parents work full time these days.
Don't get me started tax credit funded 'self employment'.
UC really wasn't designed to reduce the JSA bill, there is plenty of 'encouragement' for people to properly look for a job as it is. People that used to claim tax credits on the other hand will be 'encouraged' to move into full time work if they are not already doing full time hours. It's also designed to make temp work more attractive.
Under the current system a couple can claim thousands in tax credits and housing benefit by working a paltry 24 hours a week until their youngest child is 18. That's just 12 hours each and there is no requirement to increase that on tax credits. Same rules aply for a single parent except the hours are reduced to 16.
It's reasonable that people in those groups are 'encouraged' seek to increase their hours to keep their benefits under UC, especially as their children get older. Most households both parents work full time these days.
Don't get me started tax credit funded 'self employment'.
He did say equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Isn't that what you're always espousing?
Perhaps you should re read the quote in your post?
Equality of opportunity is a better ideal then equality of outcome but is still a eutopian, unobtainable goal.
People aren't equal and you can't artificially make them so. Attempts at making people more equal, opportunity wise, generally necessitate the more gifted and capable being pulled down towards the lowest common denominator.
I don't espouse equality of opportunity because I don't beleive in it generally....I have previously mentioned it in preference to equality of outcome but reject both now for the reasons stated.
For example in education I would support spending more money on gifted children as I believe society as a whole benefits from promoting and excellence where possible.
I am also not against more resources being provided to deprived or special needs children to try and promote them being more active in general society as adults.
I just don't think you can aim for equality of outcome.. You can aim for more optimal outcomes for the people concerned with the resources available however
Last edited:
but isnt that far more stress for students being constantly assessed? there fore being unfair or "unequal " to those with anxiety disorders, or prone to stress?
or even any student without a good familial and social stupor network?
so not equal at all
he answered all those reasons but you cut them out in your post...
You lot just like arguing for the sake of it, don't you?
I'm well aware that not all individuals are equal, and I firmly believe that education should be tailored to the needs of the student (across the full spectrum from G&T to SEND students).
I think what @VincentHanna was getting at (but correct me if I'm wrong Vincent) is that we should abolish public/private/faith/grammar schools and invest our time and resources on making state schools better so that education is more meritocratic and less about how rich your parents are.
It's not continous assessment in the sense that they are constantly taking exams. The teachers 'continually assess' students based on their normal work over the academic year. There's no additional stress or anxiety beyond the usual day-to-day school life.
so 100% vulnerable to individual discrimination, and again all the reasons he listed that you cut.
that system is far worse than fixed exams with no interaction for abuse.
so as he said you want to drag down the top performers.
you cant get rid of "elite" schooling and then expect every one to raise you just stick those who excel in mindless slow classes where they are wasted, money cant get your stupid kid to pass an exam.
soceity does not advance by dragging the top down it advances by the top moving forward.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
This is what I said as well in previous posts. It should be a human right. Each person should be given a home, a roof over their heads, basic essentials and enough money for food.
If they want more extra in life, then they can work for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
Advanced payment is a "loan" that you have to pay back, which is taken out your future "payments" so you still screwed.
but that costs more than all government spending per year?
Cheers bro, that Corbyn fella is a bit dim ain’t he?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
Not everyone in the country needs to claim it. People who already successfully or working, don't need to claim for it, but if they fall on hard times, they don't need to worry themselves sick about losing their homes or not having enough food for themselves or their kids, it shouldn't really be too different from the current system we have now.
If we can give people a foundation for themselves to stand, start at. Then they can build themselves up, how we go about that... that's out my depth. lol
Conscription in the Military or a Civil Service at the age of 18 or 21 for 4 or 8 years would be really good start for everyone.
Only in GD do I see such nonsense posted.
Does not having the answer to poverty prohibit someone from criticising a bad idea?
Why on earth does criticising the conservative government means someone supports Labour? Mental gymnastics.
Well no, because teachers don't teach in isolation. There are department reviews, faculty reviews, year-group reviews and reviews with the Senior Leadership Team. It's not like a single teach says "This kid goes to the dunce's school" and that's it.
Quite the opposite — I want to see the top performers get the opportunities they deserve regardless of their background.
Or do you believe that everyone who attends private school is somehow inherently cleverer than everyone who attends state schools?
If you think most of the "elite" schools have anything to do with 'elite education' you're deluded. They are 'Elite' networking clubs and the stupid kids don't need to pass their exams to still have better opportunities than most of the top qualifiers from standard state schools.
I never said it's not possible but if people are the supplying the information they're required to then it should take roughly 35 days to get your first payment. As someone mentioned too, apply for an advance payment if you cannot wait 35 days.
- Status