Poor pupils face a "double disadvantage"

Soldato
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
Poor pupils in weak schools face a "double disadvantage", which is the equivalent of being left a year behind more affluent contemporaries in better schools,

The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce has done research which warned of a "double disadvantage" in which the poorest children are concentrated in the least successful schools while affluent pupils tend to attend better schools.

RSA - Website

http://www.thersa.org/

Article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/03/poor-pupils-weak-schools-disadvantage

Is it right to centralise the new better schools in areas which are already performing well above the national average & is the idea of religional pay for public sector workers going to exasperate the problem of social mobility even more?.

Given the evidence, it's hard to ignore that this kind of policy will wider the gap even further between children born in poverty against those in affluent families.

While in part I can understand the frustration at the underclass of those out of work in the UK (while I disagree with it), isn't this kind of policy going to make the situation worse?, create more hopeless people who are unable to contribute towards the growth & success of the nation?.

If people hate the "lazy ****less people" would it not be in our best interests to stop these changes which WILL create more of them?.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
16,738
Location
London
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

EDIT - Ok i think I'll expand on that.

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. Home not a good environment to study? Go to the library, study there, teachers are rubbish? I had that, taught myself from the text books. Getting 90-100% in tests for Maths and Science, went to a decent uni in London and got myself a Physics degree and a post-grad in Computer Science. There is no reason at all for anyone, any child, not to do what i did and improve their situation.
 
Last edited:

fez

fez

Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
20,184
Location
Tunbridge Wells
As with pretty much everything children related, the parents are the real problem. I am really sick of everyones view that the government can magically overcome the issues that come with having **** parents that don't give a **** about their children's education and upbringing.

My parents could never be accused of being rich and yet they raised 2 children to behave in school and place a high value on learning. They also helped us outside of school. Good parenting and schooling have very little relevance to wealth other than the correlation between peoples wealth and the value they place on work and education.

The local school near me is a complete hole that gets under 30% 5 A-C at GCSE every year. There are plenty of children there that do well and many more that do poorly. GCSE's are not hard by any stretch of the imagination so those that fail them are either not very bright at all or didn't work at all.

The main difference between the ones that do well in that school? The parents. The ones that do poorly almost always have scum for parents. The government are not failing children, their parents are.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
34,158
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

That's a bit short sighted. Children who are from families that, for whatever reason, did not attend higher education are less likely to attend higher education than parents who did, largely down to encouragement from parents.

Not attending higher education (A-levels onwards) isn't a bad thing, but it does limit opportunities.

The problem is that the boost in encouragement from improved schooling is alledgedly being directed at those who are from wealthy backgrounds, who are likely to attend higher education anyway.

Fez is absolutely right, the problem is the parents, but where should the government be focussing on the improvement of education? Those who are most likely to succeed in education or those most likey to not succeed?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,134
Location
Vvardenfell
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



So you don't think that the school you go to makes any difference in how you turn out? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting. The parents who spend all that money on private schools may want to ask for it back then.


M
 

RDM

RDM

Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2007
Posts
20,612
Note : Just so it's here first - I really don't care if you personally grew up in a poor family, we are talking about statistics & averages here, not 100% of cases.

Read the below before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

Read the below before posting any more articles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

:D

Forgive me for not paying all that much attention to what Labour are saying about the Conservative education policy. The article seems to be somewhat light on detail, so much so that I was actually struggling to work out what the double disadvantage was. Is being poor a disadvantage in of itself when it comes to education? It was also a little light in how the current government policies are making it worse or how Labour would make it better.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
16,738
Location
London
So you don't think that the school you go to makes any difference in how you turn out? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting. The parents who spend all that money on private schools may want to ask for it back then.


M

I just expanded my first post but i'll repeat it here:

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. Home not a good environment to study? Go to the library, study there, teachers are rubbish? I had that, taught myself from the text books. Getting 90-100% in tests for Maths and Science, went to a decent uni in London and got myself a Physics degree and a post-grad in Computer Science. There is no reason at all for anyone, any child, not to do what i did and improve their situation.

Expanded further, my parents are from a forigen country (I'm Latino in case you were wondering) So couldn't speak great english, they couldn't help with my homework and pretty much left me to it. No help with tutors because we couldn't afford it, my point is a did it without any extra help then all those other poor disadvantaged kids in school that messed around instead of studying.
 
Last edited:

fez

fez

Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
20,184
Location
Tunbridge Wells
So you don't think that the school you go to makes any difference in how you turn out? Because that's what you seem to be suggesting. The parents who spend all that money on private schools may want to ask for it back then.

M

I don't think we are claiming that the school you go to makes no difference. Learning up to A-Levels is well within the vast vast majority of children regardless of the school. You don't have to be at all smart to teach GCSE's so I doubt that the teaching is the issue.

All of the poor schools near me are poor because of the area they are in. The parents don't care about education which is then passed to the children which in turn makes the schools job borderline impossible.

We need to look at the parents more than the children. Very few children who's parents couldn't give a **** about education go on to achieve great things because parents have such a large role in the development of children's values and drives.
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2010
Posts
8,201
What's actually needed is that instead of trying to make everyone academic is to encourage apprenticeships and other trade skills.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
Read the below before posting any more articles...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

:D

Forgive me for not paying all that much attention to what Labour are saying about the Conservative education policy. The article seems to be somewhat light on detail, so much so that I was actually struggling to work out what the double disadvantage was. Is being poor a disadvantage in of itself when it comes to education? It was also a little light in how the current government policies are making it worse or how Labour would make it better.
LolRDM :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that by concentrating high quality schools in areas which already have good schools/affluent families by some miracle isn't going to exasperate the problem of inequality of the education?.

The double disadvantage is based on two things, 1. Having poor parents (is already a disadvantage) 2. The government centralising higher quality schools in areas in which not many poor people live.

I'd have thought it was pretty clear to anybody who could read.

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.
 
Associate
Joined
27 Aug 2003
Posts
2,063
Fez is absolutely right, the problem is the parents, but where should the government be focussing on the improvement of education? Those who are most likely to succeed in education or those most likey to not succeed?

they should be trying to change the attitude of the underclass in this country away from the distractive mindset that is F* the police and f* the government I'm not working i'm gangster and proud.

remove that thought process and you encourage people to better themselves and improve their situation.
 

fez

fez

Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
20,184
Location
Tunbridge Wells
What's actually needed is that instead of trying to make everyone academic is to encourage apprenticeships and other trade skills.

Thats almost entirely unrelated to this issue though. This is about the disparity between the prospects of children from good schools and bad ones. That is more of a general issue with the way we perceive trades in this country.

The children that don't get any GCSE's are not stupid just poorly educated for various reasons. I genuinely believe that anyone who cannot get 5 A - C is well below average in the I.Q stakes (in a perfect world where everyone worked as hard as they could) so most of those that don't will not have worked at school.
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
16,738
Location
London
LolRDM :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that by concentrating high quality schools in areas which already have good schools/affluent families by some miracle isn't going to exasperate the problem of inequality of the education?.

The double disadvantage is based on two things, 1. Having poor parents (is already a disadvantage) 2. The government centralising higher quality schools in areas in which not many poor people live.

I'd have thought it was pretty clear to anybody who could read.

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.

It's just coming across now as another left-wing 'lets bash the rich' thread that seems to be so much in fashion these days.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posts
10,575
Location
Portsmouth (Southsea)
I just expanded my first post but i'll repeat it here:

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. Home not a good environment to study? Go to the library, study there, teachers are rubbish? I had that, taught myself from the text books. Getting 90-100% in tests for Maths and Science, went to a decent uni in London and got myself a Physics degree and a post-grad in Computer Science. There is no reason at all for anyone, any child, not to do what i did and improve their situation.

Expanded further, my parents are from a forigen country (I'm Latino in case you were wondering) So couldn't speak great english, they couldn't help with my homework and pretty much left me to it. No help with tutors because we couldn't afford it, my point is a did it without any extra help then all those other poor disadvantaged kids in school that messed around instead of studying.
Cool story bro.

Read the second post.


It's just coming across now as another left-wing 'lets bash the rich' thread that seems to be so much in fashion these days.
What does this have to do with bashing the rich?.

I'm talking about education policies which are likely to cause the very behaviour the right hates so much.

If you really want to stop the "culture of lazy benefit people" then perhaps you should listen to what the most educated people in the world have to say on how to do that.

You come across as another "ring wing one trick pony" who seems incapable of accepting scientific facts & evidence - instead relying on blind prejudice & subjective experience.

I don't even like these people, my political views are a result of accepting scientific fact & the data clearly shows what's the causes of the kind of behaviour we ALL hate.

I'm interesting in stopping it for good, not pandering to some archaic & simple-minded view of personal responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Apr 2006
Posts
16,738
Location
London
Cool story bro.

Read the second post.

Just because you don't want to hear it because it negates your posts. And you missed the point anyway. It's gone right over your head. There is nothing i did that can't be done by any one child in a 'poor' family
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2002
Posts
7,091
Location
pantyhose factory
I blame parenting standards. Poor does not equal thick !!!!! Lazy = Thick. **** parents who laze around on their fat backsides watching Jeremy Kyle while askign their kids to grab them another can of special brew out of the fridge = not encouraging or supporting your children's education.While setting an example that its ok to be lazy because ...... hey who cares if you turn out thick and can't get a job, because that's what the welfare state was invented for.

If labour would have spent more time and effort and making people realise that your childrens education is every bit the responsibility of the parents as it is of the schools we'd be in better shape. However they found it easier to bribe this section of populace with over the top benefits thus reinforcing the notion that being thick and lazy and out of work was actually ok because the government will pay you to be that way in return of course for your vote so you can keep the slovenly lifestyle you are now accustomed to !!!
 

fez

fez

Soldato
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
20,184
Location
Tunbridge Wells
LolRDM :rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that by concentrating high quality schools in areas which already have good schools/affluent families by some miracle isn't going to exasperate the problem of inequality of the education?.

The double disadvantage is based on two things, 1. Having poor parents (is already a disadvantage) 2. The government centralising higher quality schools in areas in which not many poor people live.

I'd have thought it was pretty clear to anybody who could read.

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.

I think that what we are suggesting is that labours policy of throwing money at problems doesn't solve them, it just wastes money. If you did a swap of all the students in the best and worst school in the country when they hit 11 you would still find that the students that were originally in the best school would outperform the "bad" students that were now in the "best" schools massively.
 
Top Bottom