They may not at that particular point but that does not mean that such an attitude can't be changed - you only have to take a look at how well problem children and poorer immigrants are integrated into places like Finland to have a clue about how to do it. Strangely enough it involves social workers and psychologists not beating the **** out of kids or exclusion.
Poor pupils face a "double disadvantage"
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
They may not at that particular point but that does not mean that such an attitude can't be changed - you only have to take a look at how well problem children and poorer immigrants are integrated into places like Finland to have a clue about how to do it. Strangely enough it involves social workers and psychologists not beating the **** out of kids or exclusion.
Soldato
the bar is high enough , what happens though is good teachers in bad schools develop a serious case of despondency and eventually just turn up to work to get paid rather than actually fulfil their vocations of being educators.
You could put Stephen Hawkins in as a professor of physics in one of the worst schools and he would end up coming across as a bad educator for the simple fact that he would not be able to control the learning environment.
trying to educate children who want to learn at the same time as having feral disturbances that you cannot control is not conducive of a good learning environment. This is the reason why I think a lot of good teacher eventually give up and just grind the hours to get paid
No, I am awaiting your reply with peer reviewed references. You claimed there is scientific research and implied I should base my opinion on that research - show it me! will read it an analyse it. I am scientist and reviewing scientific literature is part of my job.
You claimed this research exists, I have made no such claim that counter evidence exists. If I had then I would be expected to provide this evidence., I merely stated an educated opinion.
The onus is on you to provide this evidence. The fact that you cannot provide this evidence indicates that it either dos not exist, or you don't have a clue what you are arguing about.
Which was why I made my point that better discipline will go much further than better teachers.
In one of my classes a feral child kept playing a gameboy, every-time the teacher told him to put it away the kid would swear back at the teacher. The teacher asked the brat to leave the classroom to which he just continued swearing. The teacher went up to the idiot to confiscate his gameboy and the kid rips out a knife and points it at the teacher! Luckily the idiot quickly realised his stupidity and put the knife down, ran out the class room and school, finally getting arrested by police.
I don't care how good a teacher is, unless they take self-defense lesson or arm themselves with tazers they are just not going to control such animals.
Some kind of Mary Poppins teachers is just going to end up stabbed
Then there are the kids that were just stoned, literally, at the back of the class. Although they were not too disturbing, it was the ones on ecstasy that really disturbed the class.
No offence but i've had a lot of **** teachers nothing to do with the students.
there's one at college, teaches paid apprentices, all turn up on time all sit there quietly with good discipline,. and he spends roughly 10 minutes of an hour an a half lesson in the class then ****s off for the rest, and what little he does teach is wrong.
I've had to correct him several times when he's taught something wrong and then steadfastly insisted that he's right when others have questioned (and then just given in to his "I'm right I'm the teacher attitude").
Apparently the college has been protecting him as well as when we had our meetings with our employer they said none of our complaints had been passed on to them, hopefully next year the git will be fired though now one of the major funders of the college knows.
Was annoying as hell him deciding before the teacher strike that for once he'd stay in a lesson longer than 10 mins to bitch about how unfair the cuts the government are forcing on him and how his final salary pension is being reduced to a level that's still 20% higher than ours (and ours is what al of us would consider very generous).
I really hope another strike comes up after our exams when we don't need his lessons nay more so i can tell him that when he finally does an actual days work he can complain about his pay.
Associate
Whilst I somewhat agree with you, when everyone around you is a lazy sod who doesn't give a **** about their future, I'm fairly sure it has some sort of negative effect by osmosis.
As suggested below, I think it probably has a lot more to do with the parents, but even if you're the lone kid with good parents in a school filled with the unwanted, it probably will set you back.
I was a poor kid, my experience was that it was hard to learn in the classes I wasn't so good at because the my peers simply didn't give a toss. They were disruptive, and a pain in the backside, but aruging the point would have simply been painting a target on my back.
So instead, I kept quiet, went to college, then uni, then got a job and worked on a postgrad, and here I am. It hardly ruined my life, but to say it isn't a disadvantage to be in a school which basically doesn't care about teaching you is something I'd need to disagree with.
Many get through it, but enough kids give up on their future just because they don't know what to do about it for it to be considered a real problem, and for it to matter.
Getting beat on is a pretty good reason.
I do agree with you that the chances is there for those who want it bad enough, but I still think the situation can be greatly improved from what I was at school.
Associate
One could argue that you're be limiting those who are doing well for the sake of the herd. Many schools already do that, but it would seem unwise to change the system for the those it's working for. Perhaps the underachievers? Probably still a good way to destroy your future election prospects.
Why does everything have to be about left and right to you? Why do you insist on pigeon holing everyone all the time?
On to the subject at hand... Why are these new free schools being concentrated in more affluent areas? AFAIK free schools are set up by collectives of parents that want more control of their school (to make it better, change what they teach, etc.). Is the current government choosing applications based on affluence of the area or is there something else at play?
Is it maybe due to the fact those in the more affluent areas have a greater interest in their childs study and want to change it by setting up these school, so there are more applications in more affluent areas because the poorer areas just don't have people bothered/willing to set one up in their area?
If that is the case then what can we do about it? Do we just scrap the idea of free schools because if does not help the poorer areas, because they don't want to help themselves? Or do we do something different? If so, what? Maybe advertising and trying to set up groups to start free schools? Forcing free schools and people in the area to take an interest?
No it's not a fair system...
However it's not fair, not because of the government in most of these cases, but because of the other students in the school.
In reality how do you sort this problem out? Throw money at it? Nope... The most likely ways to make a bad school into a good school and allow the ones that want to try to get good grades is to stop the distraction and chaos around them... By either moving those that try into other schools with less disruption or expelling those that cause the disruption in the first place. Unfortunately with those two options all you do is get another bad school, with just the worst in society in it, or move them to another school where they cause more chaos and affect the study of the students at that school (which is what generally happens).
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,108
Spot on... and it again comes back to just how do we change the mindset of those consistently disruptive elements? Is it the government's job to pump resources into convincing them of the value of decent behaviour and education?
No. It isn't. So, once again, and as has already been stated very early in the thread, the main disadvantage is rooted at home. Plenty of successful people come from disadvantaged backgrounds because they personally put the work in and/or had supportive parents. Conversely, the opposite is also true. That's life, and there's nothing that can realistically be done about it. Well, outside of endlessly throwing money at repetitive studies to display just that, it would seem.
I have to disagree with you here, I don't have any scientific evidence, only anecdotal but I think a good teacher can help massively in controlling a class. At my school we had a number of ***** for want of a better word, there were several (generally senior male) teachers that could teach a class with very little disruption with these people in. You'd then go to another subject with the same people, have a different teacher and all hell would break loose... They couldn't control the class when the other teacher could.
I don't know how money comes into it however on the teacher side of things, unless you give teachers in poorer (in the educational/diciplinary sense) schools a higher salary perhaps, to persuade them to take the more challenging working conditions. Hopefully though there would be plenty of teachers that want to work in those conditions, in which case why throw extra money at those schools in the first place?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,108
Today's employment market has all teachers on the same scale, regardless of the specific school they're teaching in (disregarding the obvious difference in London wages). A teacher up north in a heavenly school, at the same point in the scale, is paid the same as one working in a living hell.
You'll always find teachers who relish the challenge, and put everything they can into trying to help the most wayward of children towards bettering themselves. You'll similarly always find those just working the minimum, grabbing their wages and badmouthing the little scrotes for the remainder of their evenings. Just like any industry, that's the way it is.
Many incompetent teachers are weeded out day by day - we just don't hear about it on the news or whatever. On the flip side, many perfectly competent teachers are so brow-beaten by the lack of support that they decide to leave their careers and join the private sector as *whatever* in order to escape it. Those are genuine losses, and again it happens every day. It's just what happens, and while it may be an apathetic viewpoint, once again... that's life. It's a stressful job, and you can either let the worst elements get to you, brave it through, or get lucky and work in a school with a majority of academic angels. It's the same with office politics everywhere, except instead of x-number of colleagues you're facing x-number of other people's children daily. Plus the colleagues.
When an individual simply isn't interested in learning about anything, there's nothing you can do to help them. As has been said, it happens on both sides: There are individuals from poor backgrounds who have truly excelled in their search for a better life, and those of affluent stock who have become nothing more than career criminals/complete nomarks through a terminal lack of work ethic or plain effort.
I agree that different teachers can handle disruptive pupils better. But I don't think that is a measure of their teaching ability. The issue there is discipline of the unruly children. Solve the discipline problems and/or remove disruptive children and the so called bad teachers will be much more effective.
I'm not saying there are not such thing a bad teacher. Quite the opposite, I think most teachers are pretty bad and a good teacher extremely rare. Hence the good schools are good not because of the teachers, which are mostly bad, but because there are less disruptive feral children that have zero concern for education. A bright and motivated student merely needs a text book a few pointers of what to learn and the pass papers. For sure good teachers can help the learning process but it's not a requirement. I'd actually be quite concerned with being spoon fed information to pass exams rather than a good amount of self studying and learning by trial. Hence why many people struggle at university where they are not walked through every step and they actually have to learn by themselves, the lectures merely providing pointers of what to research and learn.
So yes, the problem of bad schools has nothing to do with economics or politics, probably only a little to do with teacher quality but is a result of complex social issues.
Intelligence and general ability are at least 50-70% hereditary in contributation and the remainder are environmental effects that is almost entirely dependent on the parents. Changing the family environment is incredibly difficult so I am not sure what solution is really possible.
Clearly discipline is at the heart of the problem. If teachers didn't have to put up with knives being pointed at them, being spat at, swore at, attacked and if the pupils were eager to learn then wealth of the school district or pupil's parents would obviously have no impact.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I'm aware that you're probably just using him as an example of a physicist that most people will have heard of but I'd suggest that being pre-eminent in your field doesn't necessarily equate to being a good educator. Sometimes it may be completely the reverse - if you've never struggled with a subject then you might not have the first idea why other people do which can make it difficult to relate.
Professor Hawkings may be a great educator but it's probably not just because he's brilliant at physics.
You're a scientist? I'll stop right there then. If I had of known I was being critical of someone who has those kind of credentials I wouldn't have posted what I did and readily accepted your expertise in all fields.
From my laypersons view though I just found it strange that you would say the skills of the teaching staff had no bearing on educational attainment when all the stuff I have read indicates that boundary setting, discipline, etc are fundamental parts of being a good teacher along with engaging parents to take an active part in their children's education.
Oh and being as you have such a wealth of literature to trawl I reckon you could quite easily see what they do in Finland which like I says revolves not around exclusions and beating kids but working with their families. I am sure someone with your researching skills can find such readily available material.
If however you are not a scientist and don't have very good research skills I'll offer you one of the top 10 results from that cunning Google thing: http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9ae6dfc5-bda6-4d6f-8780-c97abab350e9/datastreams/THESIS01
Plenty of references in there to chase up. And maybe actually argue yourself into a position that has a little more complexity than the one you currently take.