• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Completely misguided government edict #1674656563365677

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Completely misguided government edict #1674656563365677

    BBC News - Schools told to narrow gap between rich and poor

    At some point perhaps they will realise that it's not the education system that's the problem, it's the gap between rich and poor.

    Or to put it another way, why should poor people be given a better education?
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

    #2
    Originally posted by doodab View Post
    BBC News - Schools told to narrow gap between rich and poor

    At some point perhaps they will realise that it's not the education system that's the problem, it's the gap between rich and poor.

    Or to put it another way, why should poor people be given a better education?
    All this means is that they will cut funding for maths lessons so people won't be able to tell a high number from a low one, problem solved!
    Originally posted by Stevie Wonder Boy
    I can't see any way to do it can you please advise?

    I want my account deleted and all of my information removed, I want to invoke my right to be forgotten.

    Comment


      #3
      Do try to get beyond the headline. It's not about closing the gap between rich and poor in all aspects - simply the fact that poorer kids do worse in school than richer kids, and schools can (and do, in fact) address that. The kids from the poorest families are less likely to have a home life that is conducive to academic achievement. A child with parental support will do better than one without - this is clearly seen even in my local school in a very affluent country where we don't have the social problems of the UK. Poorer kids are more likely to have parents who either don't give a stuff or simply can't support their offspring in this way, being too thick/uneducated themselevs.

      Schools can help to deal with that in a number of ways - homework clubs, extended school hours, even extra tuition for the brightest poor pupils. This article is really about Laws promoting his "pupil premium" idea to help schools pay for these things - even though they've been doing them for years.

      If extra education can prevent a child becoming part of the next generation of benefit spongers, that's got to be a good thing and a worthwhile investment.
      Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

      Comment


        #4
        Genetics comes into play here - clever parents have better paid jobs. They also are more likely to have naturally clever kids. Where you have got bright kids with a crappy homelife, I agree that it's worth going the extra mile to give those kids the best possible chance. But I think many schools already do that.

        Comment


          #5
          It's a bit like CUK. The thickos get extra support to help them aspire to be as good as sas.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
            ... But I think many schools already do that.
            And have for a long while - my wife did teacher training in Byker in the 90s, and there was a real effort to improve the lot of some of the kids, so that there was a better chance of them getting out.
            Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
              Do try to get beyond the headling. It's not about closing the gap between rich and poor in all aspects - simply the fact that poorer kids do worse in school than richer kids, and schools can (and do, in fact) address that. The kids from the poorest families are less likely to have a home life that is conducive to academic achievement. A child with parental support will do better than one without - this is clearly seen even in my local school in a very affluent country where we don't have the social problems of the UK. Poorer kids are more likely to have parents who either don't give a stuff or simply can't support their offspring in this way, being too thick/uneducated themselevs.

              Schools can help to deal with that in a number of ways - homework clubs, extended school hours, even extra tuition for the brightest poor pupils. This article is really about Laws promoting his "pupil premium" idea to help schools pay for these things - even though they've been doing them for years.

              If extra education can prevent a child becoming part of the next generation of benefit spongers, that's got to be a good thing and a worthwhile investment.
              But the point is that extra education is treating the symptom, not the cause. Poorer kids have poorer life chances, do less well at school, suffer poorer health over their lifetimes, are more likely to have mental health problems and a dozen other things, because they are poor. There is a ton of evidence that parentel socio economic status and not genetics is the primary factor.

              Expecting schools to redress the balance when the country is being run in a way that serves to widen the inequality that causes the problem in the first place is pissing in the wind.
              While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

              Comment


                #8
                To me, the constant emphasis on academic achievement is a problem. Yes, every child should be encouraged to do as well as they can, but if kids are more suited to a car mechanic course, or bricklaying, dressmaking, childcare etc, then, if those kids achieve in the vocational subjects, isn't that better than getting them their 5 grade A*-Cs? But the school isn't measured on success in getting kids through those sorts of qualifications.

                A better measure would be how many of the kids have successful long term jobs two years after leaving full time education.

                Comment


                  #9
                  There is also the question of how you actually implement this and handle borderline cases. Do we say to kids 'you don't get help becuase your dad has a job as a bin man'? Or plough additional funding into schools in impoverished areas or that are perceived as 'not meeting the target'? What happens when parents try and game the system to qualify for free after school clubs?

                  As you both say, most schools are already doing what they can. This is more worrisome politcal meddling and IMO schools (and parents) have had enough of it.

                  My son has a fantastic english vocabulary, which his teacher and others have commented on, but he's going to struggle at an upcoming reading test because it involves sounding out nonsense words and his way of dealing with unknown words when reading is to guess at a word he already knows verbally. His teacher told us not to worry because his reading is excellent and the test is completely stupid and only there for ofsted.
                  While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
                    To me, the constant emphasis on academic achievement is a problem. Yes, every child should be encouraged to do as well as they can, but if kids are more suited to a car mechanic course, or bricklaying, dressmaking, childcare etc, then, if those kids achieve in the vocational subjects, isn't that better than getting them their 5 grade A*-Cs? But the school isn't measured on success in getting kids through those sorts of qualifications.

                    A better measure would be how many of the kids have successful long term jobs two years after leaving full time education.
                    +1. Unfortunately you can't measure that in the life of a parliament so they won't bother because they can't take the credit.
                    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X