Poor pupils face a "double disadvantage"

[RDM]

LolRDM

Grow up.

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?.

Considering how limited the free schools programme is I struggle to see how it is really having any serious impact on schooling in general in the UK. I can see however why some would disagree on ideological grounds.

Though if you actually cared about education rather that political points scoring you would be all for free schools and their abilities to change the school timetable. You want to improve academic attainment amongst the less wealthy? Cut down the summer holiday significantly.

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.

The real issue is the first one and a different definition of poor. I am assuming you mean poor in terms of wealth when really it is poor in terms of academic attitude. Poor kids with parents that care about their education will still do well, poor kids with parents that don't care about their education will not.

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.

Maybe you should read the link on bias I gave earlier...

 

[RomanNose]

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.

Getting 5 A-C is fairly essential and it is really worrying that a large %age don't even get that.
I just think that it's terrible that we don't have more young people learning trades and the government really need to do something about it.

 

[Nitefly]

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

Perhaps, but you can't say they have equal opportunities as those from more prosperous backgrounds. Do you not think that as such children have the least opportunities they should be a focus of improving education?

 

[wildman]

what are the two disadvantages?




Financially poor or poor in quality?

I'd say poor in quality, financial poverty does not equate to children being thick or uneducated. poor quality / lazy parenting does however

 

[Tefal]

I'd say poor in quality, financial poverty does not equate to children being thick or uneducated. poor quality / lazy parenting does however

then what is the double disadvantage?


you can be rich and a **** parent.

 

[Tefal]

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.

the labour party are the most educated people in the world?

 

[stuman]

also i'll add,

this whole "community" idea that the government is breeding is a load of junk as well, it's isolating people in dead end areas and tieing them to places and people that create cesspits of scum and criminality. wealth has nothing to do with this. people make a choice to stay in a certain area and adhere to a certain life. people make change happen, however if people don't want to change, they won't.

 

[wildman]

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.

I agree with this statement. Children with **** parents who never encourage them or set them a good example or take the time to explain to them the need for a good education will always end up doing worse regardless of what school they may go to.

Education is not soley the responsibility of the Schools, parents have to accept and equal part in the education of their children, failure to do so is waht leads to the increase in feral behaviours displayed in many schools up and down the country

 

[fez]

Perhaps, but you can't say they have equal opportunities as those from more prosperous backgrounds. Do you not think that as such children have the least opportunities they should be a focus of improving education?

The world is not fair and never will be. The wealth, intelligence of you and your parents, your location in the world etc all make a huge difference to your expected quality of life.

What we are trying to say is that if you want to fix the schools system you will see tiny results by changing the school a child is at compared to the chance that would come with supportive parents. If you want to fix education, fix parenting not superficial **** like putting new schools in areas with poor results.

 

[Nitefly]

What we are trying to say is that if you want to fix the schools system you will see tiny results by changing the school a child is at compared to the chance that would come with supportive parents. If you want to fix education, fix parenting not superficial **** like putting new schools in areas with poor results.

Why not do both? I don't think spending money on areas that have children from less fortunate areas is as superficial as you are making out. If anything, it's where you would want to spend that money as it's where it's most needed.

 

[robgmun]

Perhaps, but you can't say they have equal opportunities as those from more prosperous backgrounds. Do you not think that as such children have the least opportunities they should be a focus of improving education?

I'm not against that in the slightest, but none of that will matter if the parents and kids don't understand that taking advantage of the opportunely that's in front of them (Having an education at all) is what will get you out of the poverty trap. Not waiting for more government handouts, or in one case i can mention, waiting to win the lottery

I remember one teacher being asked when i was at school how she managed to get a house/car etc. She just said that she worked hard at school and got the grades to get a decent job. The children in my class laughed in her face!

In my school if you were getting good grades you got picked on, so i was bulled a lot in school. I didn't give a **** as i knew (and later to be proved right) that a vast majorty of them would be on the dole or at best work in a dead end retail job

 

[elmarko]

Grow up.

Coming from somebody linking "omg you are bias" wiki-pages I find that comment quite laughable (also having read the kind of tripe you peddle in other threads even more hilarious).

Considering how limited the free schools programme is I struggle to see how it is really having any serious impact on schooling in general in the UK. I can see however why some would disagree on ideological grounds.

It's a part of the problem, the wider problem that this government seems fixated on expanding the gap between the achievements of the minority at the expense of the majority.

Though if you actually cared about education rather that political points scoring you would be all for free schools and their abilities to change the school timetable. You want to improve academic attainment amongst the less wealthy? Cut down the summer holiday significantly.

Evidence on the last point please.

The real issue is the first one and a different definition of poor. I am assuming you mean poor in terms of wealth when really it is poor in terms of academic attitude. Poor kids with parents that care about their education will still do well, poor kids with parents that don't care about their education will not.

You do know that academic attitude & wealth are linked?, do you honestly believe that the human mind is so separated in all issues?, that the stress of poverty/growing up in a crime infest council estate won't influence a child at all?, the shame related to poverty?.

That kind of short-sighted point of view only highlights how little you know about the subject matter at hand.

Maybe you should read the link on bias I gave earlier...

Yawn.

 

[wildman]

Why not do both? I don't think spending money on areas that have children from less fortunate areas is as superficial as you are making out. If anything, it's where you would want to spend that money as it's where it's most needed.

you'd want to sort the parenting out first before injection millions / billions to building new schools. Its hard to tell if the issue is schools when the parenting levels in some areas are already so dire that even provision of excellent schools would serve little purpose as they simply wouldn't be taken advantage of by a generation of kids raised by lazy inadequate parents.

I have no problems with pumping extra money into the education system, but I do have issues if it is just plastering over the cracks rather than addressing the real issues.

The whole concept of family, and family values, parenting skills and the home in the country seems to have gone to pot !!!

 

[Dave M]

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.

What do you do, help the next generation or pander to current voters? Tough one.

 

[RDM]

Coming from somebody linking "omg you are bias" wiki-pages I find that comment quite laughable (also having read the kind of tripe you peddle in other threads even more hilarious).

Is that really the best you can do?

 

[Tefal]

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.

What do you do, help the next generation or pander to current voters? Tough one.

odds are though it would end up in wide spread abuse of children.

You can set it up with all the best intentions but it always seems to happen with these things.

 

[fez]

Why not do both? I don't think spending money on areas that have children from less fortunate areas is as superficial as you are making out. If anything, it's where you would want to spend that money as it's where it's most needed.

I don't think I explained myself very well. The government is not a bottomless pit of money and when you address a problem, you tend to focus on those that will give the best return for the money spent. I don't think that putting new schools into poor areas will change the education standards very much and will cost a fortune.

A much better and more efficient use of that money would be in the re-education of the parents. Like I said, GCSE's are not hard and you can do them at any school as long as you are allowed to learn. Putting all the bad children in a new school will just make the new school bad.

 

[elmarko]

the labour party are the most educated people in the world?

No, most of them are idiots.

Don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of Labour either - the biggest tragedy was how little they actually did to address the poverty gap while in power.

What they did, compared to what they could have done (if they didn't waste money on illegal wars, pointless initiatives & other hair-brain schemes) is the biggest failing of them.

The only reason I prefer them to the Tory's is due to the fact at least they did something - now the trend is reversing.

Regarding the most educated people part.

I'm talking about the results on the study's on human behaviour, the negative effects of poverty & the importance of social mobility - the educated people as in the scientists.

 

[Nitefly]

Evidence on the last point please.

What about evidence for the contrary?

A much better way to argue with him would be to provide an opinion on why he is wrong. It's not really something that needs a source to back it up.

 

[wildman]

C
You do know that academic attitude & wealth are linked?, do you honestly believe that the human mind is so separated in all issues?, that the stress of poverty/growing up in a crime infest council estate won't influence a child at all?, the shame related to poverty?.

That kind of short-sighted point of view only highlights how little you know about the subject matter at hand.

Yawn.

You can't say this, when in the OP you say i don't want to hear any stories of 'I was poor and did ok', as those stories disprove most of your theories

That is bias and RDM is right in this case.